Re: Tree with leading '0' modes in 1.7.0.3

"Shawn O. Pearce" [off-list ref] writes:

Nicolas Pitre [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Sat, 27 Mar 2010, Scott Chacon wrote:

quoted

quoted

My stance has always been that the C Git is authoritative with regards to
formats and protocols. ??It's up to Github to fix their screw-up.

It is fixed and will be deployed soon, but really, there is no reason
to be snippy.  It is a simple and minor mistake effecting very few
repositories (maybe 100 out of 730k)

What is the C Git stance on these 100 repositories then?  Are they
now considered corrupt?  Or is 100 enough in the wild that we have
to accept the problem, just like we accept the 10664 mode issue from
"ancient" Linux?

I would love to say "those are corrupt, sorry, fix your repository".

This is why I first asked how widespread the copies of the implementation
of that broken tool are.  If it is only 100 and all breakages are confined
to objects created at GitHub installation, and the owners of these 100
repositories are not locally creating corrupt objects with copies of
broken reimplementation of git they have, I would say that we tell them to
fix it, and GitHub can hopefully help them as their hosting site.