Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 09:01:45AM -0400, Ben Peart wrote: > >> > > But what we probably _do_ need is to make sure that "git fsck" would >> > > detect such an out-of-order index. So that developers and users alike >> > > can diagnose suspected problems. >> > >> > Agree -- that seems like a better home for this logic. >> >> That is how version 1 of this patch worked but the feedback to that patch >> was to remove it "not only during the normal operation but also in fsck." > > Sorry for the mixed messages (I think they are mixed between different > people, and not mixed _just_ from me ;) ). > > For what it's worth, I like your v1, but can live with either approach.
I agree that v1 is the less bad one between the two. To be honest, if the original code were done in that way (i.e. the state with v1 applied), I probably would have had a very hard time to justify accepting a patch to "make it safer by always checking at runtime" (i.e. a reverse of v1 patch). So, let's go with v1. Thanks, all.
