Re: [PATCH 5/5] sha1_file: don't re-scan pack directory for null sha1

Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:

So I dunno. That is far from exhaustive, but it does seem like most
cases should assume the presence of the file.

You are right.  I should have considered that "we got a random
object-name looking thing and we do not care if it does not exist"
is a very narrow minority case.  Most of the object names we deal
with come from local repository traversal and unless things like the
"fsck-promisor" comes into the picture, we should always have them
available locally.

But it may not be that big a deal. For the most part, all bets are off
in a corrupt repo. My main concern is just that we do not want the
corruption to spread or to make it harder for us to recover from (and
that includes allowing us to delete or overwrite other data that would
otherwise be forbidden, which is what's happening in the fetch case).

Absolutely.

Thanks.