Re: [PATCH 0/4] fsck improvements

I think patches 1, 3 and 4 all are good ideas from a cursory look.

I am not sure what purpose patch 2 serves, though. When we find a checksum
mismatch for an object in a packstream due to a single-bit error, we would
still be able to salvage other objects in other parts of the pack as long
as we have a good .idx file, and in such a case, wouldn't it be better if
we attempted to find as many corrupt objects that we know we cannot
recover as possible and tell the user about them, so that they can be
skipped during the recovery process?

2011/11/5 Junio C Hamano [off-list ref]:

I am not sure what purpose patch 2 serves, though. When we find a checksum
mismatch for an object in a packstream due to a single-bit error, we would
still be able to salvage other objects in other parts of the pack as long
as we have a good .idx file, and in such a case, wouldn't it be better if
we attempted to find as many corrupt objects that we know we cannot
recover as possible and tell the user about them, so that they can be
skipped during the recovery process?

It's the inconsistency in that for(;;) loop. If we are going to
salvage as many objects as we could, should we do "continue;" instead
of "break;" when unpack_entry() or check_sha1_signature() fails?
-- 
Duy