From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/18] fsck: support demoting errors to warnings Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:15:30 -0800 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Dec 10 19:15:40 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XylnY-0004Mq-0T for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 19:15:40 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932524AbaLJSPf (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:15:35 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.int.icgroup.com ([208.72.237.35]:63934 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932479AbaLJSPe (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:15:34 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D913F22ACC; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:15:33 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=KL0kkpLYJZs7PuxZbHj8CQfSNbQ=; b=lSe7gI 7Nf1ypNHpl+2f1aLTAPci1j3pt5KvEtDzYDZMpbE+EXi8Kx4be/0bYfNK/tTGeXY eNHOUKEYpIFrDWNvEQ+vcdIRBNj5RdfMEAjhJFTb5/QorE6TJY6rvT9S2dCKUmiE v48gVjxp2jYREe2dzTBLqFiRDzlZbjWgOrH4s= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=goUKDpUmnDPqm7HiRxgzTLeXZwvJE6JS JOwyYRLAm8dZx7dGHuA4rqv6ynmNE825jTM3wZJnGLfQfjpbP2FxKiK1YKntt5uV sE0a4+5xA3sIwnrPY9hg0n1tS+XBEb0HCwYrxjesKehU8JMZqTKA++fNa5asXa6A InXU3yLOvLU= Received: from pb-smtp1.int.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF43222AC8; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:15:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [72.14.226.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A704622AC6; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:15:31 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Mon, 8 Dec 2014 17:15:32 +0100 (CET)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 870A2AB8-8098-11E4-9306-42529F42C9D4-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Schindelin writes: > We already have support in `git receive-pack` to deal with some legacy > repositories which have non-fatal issues. > > Let's make `git fsck` itself useful with such repositories, too, by > allowing users to ignore known issues, or at least demote those issues > to mere warnings. > > Example: `git -c fsck.missing-email=ignore fsck` would hide problems with > missing emails in author, committer and tagger lines. Hopefully I do not have to repeat myself, but please do not have punctuations in the first and the last level of configuration variable names, i.e. fsck.missingEmail, not mising-email. Should these be tied to receive-pack ones in any way? E.g. if you set fsck.missingEmail to ignore, you do not have to do the same for receive and accept a push with the specific error turned off? Not a rhetorical question. I can see it argued both ways. The justification to defend the position of not tying these two I would have is so that I can be more strict to newer breakages (i.e. not accepting a push that introduce a new breakage by not ignoring with receive.fsck.*) while allowing breakages that are already present. The justification for the opposite position is to make it more convenient to write a consistent policy. Whichever way is chosen, we would want to see the reason left in the log message so that people do not have to wonder what the original motivation was when they decide if it is a good idea to change this part of the code. Thanks.