Re: [PATCH 0/2] tagsize < 8kb restriction

From: Björn Engelmann <bjengelmann@gmx.de>
Date: May 25, 2006, 11:53 UTC
Message-ID: <44759ABF.1010209@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <7v1wuj6wln.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Show 12 quoted lines

> Sorry, I forgot all about hash-objects X-<.  It was a convenient
> way to try out new things such as 'gitlink'.  Thanks for the
> clarification.
>
> As to unification, I am not sure if there are a lot to unify.
> Everybody starts with type, length and a LF, but after that each
> type has its own format constraints.  A grand unified command
> that knows about format constraints of every type under the sun
> does not sound like a good approach.  While we have only handful
> types (and I expect things will stay that way) it is not a big
> deal either way, though.
>

Oops, sorry, I forgot that "modular" in C means something else than in the OO-World... You are right. Probably it is best to have one tool handle each type.

Actually what I am aiming for is not the internal structure. I am more concerned about cleaning up the user-interface. When I started learning git I found it very annoying and inconsistent that there are commands for creating a tag and a tree in a validated fashion, but the command for creating blobs was named "git-hash-object -w" and also could create all other objects without validating them at all. Also, AFAIK there is currently no way of creating a commit object with validating.

I am well aware that all functionality neccessary already exists. I just want to prevent people learning git in future to have the same frustrating experience as I did.

Obviously renaming / moving code around like that would break nearly all tools build ontop of git. Therefore I would prefer to use aliasing. If you feel like this would introduce too many unneccessary commands, I would instead focus on improving the documentation.

Bj