Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes: > Between "fsck.<msg-id> makes sense only when you use these rare and > you-probably-never-heard-of tools ongoing basis" and "when you > already have (slightly)broken objects, naming each of them in > skiplist, rather than covering the class, is better because you want > *new* instances of the same breakage", I'd imagine the latter would be
s/breakage/& caught/; obviously, otherwise what I typed does not make much sense. Sorry about the premature <SEND>. > more helpful. > > In any case, let's see if there are more input to this topic and > then wrap it up in v3 ;-) > > Thanks.
