Re: [PATCH] pack-objects: name pack files after trailer hash
From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:59:28
Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:19:33AM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote:quoted
quoted
I was tempted to explicitly say something like "this is opaque and meaningless to you, don't rely on it", but I don't know that there is any need.[...]quoted
On top of jk/name-pack-after-byte-representations, naturally.I think there is --- if someone starts caring about the SHA-1 used, they won't be able to act on old packfiles that were created before this change. How about something like the following instead?Right, my point was that I do not think anybody has ever cared, and I do not see them starting now. But that is just my intuition.quoted
diff --git a/Documentation/git-pack-objects.txt b/Documentation/git-pack-objects.txt index d94edcd..cdab9ed 100644 --- a/Documentation/git-pack-objects.txt +++ b/Documentation/git-pack-objects.txt@@ -51,8 +51,7 @@ base-name:: <base-name> to determine the name of the created file. When this option is used, the two files are written in <base-name>-<SHA-1>.{pack,idx} files. <SHA-1> is a hash - of the sorted object names to make the resulting filename - based on the pack content, and written to the standard + based on the pack content and is written to the standardI'm fine with that. I was worried it would get clunky, but the way you have worded it is good.
Our mails crossed; I think the above is good. Thanks.