Felipe Contreras writes:
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:59 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Felipe Contreras
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
- Even if we did not read from any existing marks file, if we are
given e
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:59 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Felipe Contreras
> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> - Even if we did not read from any existing marks file, if we are
>>>given export_marks_file that names an exis
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Felipe Contreras writes:
>>
>> - Even if we are reading from somewhere, export_marks_file can
>>point at a completely new file that is different from
>>import_marks file,
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Felipe Contreras writes:
>
>> Certain lines of the marks file might be corrupted (or the objects
>> missing due to a garbage collection), but that's no reason to truncate
>> the file and essentially destroy the rest of it.
>
> Hmm, so the i
Felipe Contreras writes:
> Certain lines of the marks file might be corrupted (or the objects
> missing due to a garbage collection), but that's no reason to truncate
> the file and essentially destroy the rest of it.
Hmm, so the issue is:
- we use die_nicely() that calls dump_marks() after wr
Certain lines of the marks file might be corrupted (or the objects
missing due to a garbage collection), but that's no reason to truncate
the file and essentially destroy the rest of it.
Ideally missing objects should not cause a crash, we could just skip
them, but that's another patch.
Signed-of
6 matches
Mail list logo