Stefan Sperling wrote on Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 18:08:27 +0200:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 05:47:28PM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Please address my earlier review question, asking why this needs to be
> > implemented in the library and can't be done satisfactorily in user
> > (C or Python) code.
> Well... let me turn this around on you and ask:
> Why should it not be in the library?
> You're implying that there is some good, apparently self-evident,
> reason that it should not be done in the library. When asking others
> to argue against that it helps to explain your own reasoning first.
> My reasoning is that using a callback to issue a warning about
> failed verification is adding value to an established notification
> mechanism that is already used for similar tasks in other contexts.
> So it's great to expand the notification system a bit to support
> the use case of reporting bad revisions during a verification run.
> I still think that it should just be the default mode of operation
> anyway, with a summary at the end as Julian suggested. But I'm
> equally happy with a --keep-going option if that is easier for
Verify could be not a dump but a dag.c tree crawl restricted to
node-revs younger than START_REV. It could take a notify_func and call
it whenever it encounters a corrupt noderev.
That's the blue-sky option, of course --- I'm not signing up for this
and I don't expect others to.
> Prabhu to implement. I'm not going to have time to write the code
> myself so I'm happy to accept whatever approach the patch submitter
> believes is best (as long as the approach is within reason, which
> I think it is).
Received on 2012-10-21 18:48:03 CEST