From: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Jakub Narebski <email@example.com>
Cc: Jeff King <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
email@example.com, Junio C Hamano <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Adam Roben <email@example.com>,
Bryan Larsen <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
"Matthias Urlichs" <email@example.com>,
Eric Sunshine <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] hash-object doc: elaborate on -w and --literally promises
Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 12:12:10 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <email@example.com> (raw)
On Fri, May 24 2019, Jakub Narebski wrote:
> Jeff King <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 11:53:11PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>>> Clarify the hash-object docs to explicitly note that the --literally
>>> option guarantees that a loose object will be written, but that a
>>> normal -w ("write") invocation doesn't.
>> I had to double-check here: you mean that _when_ we are writing an
>> object, "--literally" would always write loose, right?
>>> At first I thought talking about "loose object" in the docs was a
>>> mistake in 83115ac4a8 ("git-hash-object.txt: document --literally
>>> option", 2015-05-04), but as is clear from 5ba9a93b39 ("hash-object:
>>> add --literally option", 2014-09-11) this was intended all along.
>> Hmm. After reading both of those, I do think it's mostly an
>> implementation detail. I would not be at all surprised to find that the
>> test suite relies on this (e.g., cleaning up with rm
>> .git/objects/ab/cd1234). But I suspect we also rely on that for the
>> non-literal case, too. ;)
>> So I am on the fence. In some sense it doesn't hurt to document the
>> behavior, but I'm not sure I would want to lock us in to any particular
>> behavior, even for --literally. The intent of the option (as I recall)
>> really is just "let us write whatever trash we want as an object,
>> ignoring all quality checks".
> 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?
> 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).
I wonder if we can just remove this option and replace it with a
GIT_TEST_* env variable, or even a test-tool helper. I can't see why
anyone other than our own test suite wants this, and that's why it was
added. So why document it & expose it in a plumbing tool?
>>> - Allow `--stdin` to hash any garbage into a loose object which might not
>>> + Allow for hashing arbitrary data which might not
>>> otherwise pass standard object parsing or git-fsck checks. Useful for
>>> stress-testing Git itself or reproducing characteristics of corrupt or
>>> - bogus objects encountered in the wild.
>>> + bogus objects encountered in the wild. When writing objects guarantees
>>> + that the written object will be a loose object, for ease of debugging.
>> I had to read this last sentence a few times to parse it. Maybe a comma
>> before guarantees would help? Or even:
>> When writing objects, this option guarantees that the written object
>> will be a loose object, for ease of debugging.
> I agree that this reads better.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-24 10:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-20 21:53 [PATCH 0/3] hash-object doc: small fixes Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2019-05-20 21:53 ` [PATCH 1/3] hash-object doc: stop mentioning git-cvsimport Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2019-05-22 4:57 ` Jeff King
2019-05-20 21:53 ` [PATCH 2/3] hash-object doc: elaborate on -w and --literally promises Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2019-05-22 5:08 ` Jeff King
2019-05-24 10:04 ` Jakub Narebski
2019-05-24 10:12 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [this message]
2019-05-28 6:06 ` Jeff King
2019-05-28 16:56 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-05-28 16:49 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-05-20 21:53 ` [PATCH 3/3] hash-object doc: point to ls-files and rev-parse Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2019-05-22 5:15 ` Jeff King
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).