From: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <email@example.com> To: Jakub Narebski <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Jeff King <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, Junio C Hamano <email@example.com>, Adam Roben <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Bryan Larsen <email@example.com>, "Matthias Urlichs" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Eric Sunshine <email@example.com> 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: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <email@example.com> 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? >>> --literally:: >>> - 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. > > Regards,
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
Reply instructions: 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style 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 \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --subject='Re: [PATCH 2/3] hash-object doc: elaborate on -w and --literally promises' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox: https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git 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).