Web lists-archives.com

Re: [PATCH 2/3] hash-object doc: elaborate on -w and --literally promises




Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> I thik that this implemetation detail of `--literally` is here to stay;
> how would you otherwise fix the issue if garbage object makes Git crash?

By repacking, presumably ;-).

More importantly, there needs a way to extend "enum object_type" to
allow unbounded number of arbitrary (garbage) types before we can
allow --literally to record such a garbage type in a pack stream.

So I'd expect the implementation detail would stay for a long time.
But there is nothing that says `--literally` inherently must write
loose.  It is plausible that a new implementation writes objects of
known/valid types to a pack stream, while unknown/garbage types to
loose objects.

> However, I would prefer to have options state _intent_; if there is
> legitimate need for a tool that creates loose objects, it would be
> better to have separate `--loose` option to `git hash-object` (which
> would imply `-w`, otherwise it doesn't have sense).

Yes, I very much agree with that.