On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 2:13 AM, Ben Aveling bena@optusnet.com.au 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
Ben Aveling bena@optusnet.com.au writes:
And that seems sensible to me - the object is corrupt, it is unusable,
the object graph is already broken, we already have big problems,
removing the corrupt object(s) doesn't create any new problems, and it
allows the possibility that the damaged
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 11:04:04AM +0200, Johan Herland wrote:
I simply copied the packfile containing the good copy into the
corrupted repo, and then ran a git gc, which happened to use the
good copy of the corrupted object and complete successfully (instead
of barfing on the bad copy). The
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 11:04:04AM +0200, Johan Herland wrote:
I simply copied the packfile containing the good copy into the
corrupted repo, and then ran a git gc, which happened to use the
good copy of the corrupted object and
Johan Herland jo...@herland.net writes:
I simply copied the packfile containing the good copy into the
corrupted repo, and then ran a git gc, which happened to use the
good copy of the corrupted object and complete successfully (instead
of barfing on the bad copy). The GC then removed the old
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 deleting them would create other big
problems (i.e., we would be
6 matches
Mail list logo
