Re: [RFC/PATCH] fsck: do not canonicalize modes in trees we are checking

2014-10-20 Thread Jeff King
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 11:40:22PM +1100, Ben Aveling wrote: This seems to have worked. I also had to move away the existing .idx and copy in a new one before it was happy. Sorry if I wasn't clear; you do need to copy the .idx files along with the packfiles (you can regenerate the .idx files

Re: [RFC/PATCH] fsck: do not canonicalize modes in trees we are checking

2014-10-19 Thread Ben Aveling
On 16/10/14 11:20, Jeff King wrote: On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:46:19AM +1100, Ben Aveling wrote: I have a corrupt repository, and every time I run fsck, it reports one corrupt object, then stops. Corrupt how? Bit-corruption, or a malformed object? Bit-corruption, in multiple places. If you

Re: [RFC/PATCH] fsck: do not canonicalize modes in trees we are checking

2014-10-15 Thread Jeff King
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:46:19AM +1100, Ben Aveling wrote: On 14/10/2014 19:21, Jeff King wrote: On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 09:37:27AM +1100, Ben Aveling wrote: A question about fsck - is there a reason it doesn't have an option to delete bad objects? If the objects are reachable, then

Re: [RFC/PATCH] fsck: do not canonicalize modes in trees we are checking

2014-10-14 Thread Jeff King
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 09:37:27AM +1100, Ben Aveling wrote: A question about fsck - is there a reason it doesn't have an option to delete bad objects? If the objects are reachable, then deleting them would create other big problems (i.e., we would be breaking the object graph!). If they are

Re: [RFC/PATCH] fsck: do not canonicalize modes in trees we are checking

2014-10-12 Thread Ben Aveling
Hi, A question about fsck - is there a reason it doesn't have an option to delete bad objects? Regards, Ben On 24/09/2014 02:30, Jeff King wrote: [-cc Kirill, as his address seem out-of-date] On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 04:23:43PM +, Edward Thomson wrote: On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at

[RFC/PATCH] fsck: do not canonicalize modes in trees we are checking

2014-09-23 Thread Jeff King
Doing so means that we do not actually get to see bogus modes; they are converted into one of our known-good modes by decode_tree_entry. We want to see the raw data so that we can complain about it. Signed-off-by: Jeff King p...@peff.net --- As far as I can tell, fsck's mode-checking has been

Re: [RFC/PATCH] fsck: do not canonicalize modes in trees we are checking

2014-09-23 Thread Edward Thomson
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:47:51AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: As far as I can tell, fsck's mode-checking has been totally broken basically forever. Which makes me a little nervous to fix it. :) linux.git does have some bogus modes, but they are 100664, which is specifically ignored here unless

Re: [RFC/PATCH] fsck: do not canonicalize modes in trees we are checking

2014-09-23 Thread Jeff King
[-cc Kirill, as his address seem out-of-date] On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 04:23:43PM +, Edward Thomson wrote: On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:47:51AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: As far as I can tell, fsck's mode-checking has been totally broken basically forever. Which makes me a little nervous to