From: Johannes Sixt Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:57:32 GMT Subject: Re: Tracking OpenOffice files/other compressed files with Git Message-ID: <48C6569C.60000@viscovery.net> In-Reply-To: [please reply to all and keep the Cc list.] Sergio schrieb: > Johannes Sixt viscovery.net> writes: > >> Peter Krefting schrieb: >>> Since OpenOffice doucuments are just zipped xml files, I wondered how >>> difficult it would be to create some hooks/hack git to track the files >>> inside the archives instead? >> You could write a "clean" filter that "recompresses" the archive with >> level 0 upon git-add. ... > It could be possible to write a clean filter to uncompress before commit. > However there is a trick with the complementary smudge filter to be used at > checkout. If you do not smudge properly, git always shows the file as changed > wrt the index. Smudging correctly would mean using the very same compression > ratio and compress method that OO uses, which can be a little tricky. I have > tried using the zip binary both in the clean and the smudge phases and it does > not work nicely. The smudged file is always different from the original one. One > should probably work at a lower level to have a finer control on what is > happening (libzip) and prepend to the uncompressed file the compression > parameters to be restored on smudging. You don't need to smudge the OOo file on checkout iff OOo can read a file that is "compressed" at level 0. A file that you have just 'git add'ed must not show up as dirty even if it was processed by a "clean" filter. If it does, then this indicates a bug in git, and not that a corresponding "smudge" filter is missing or misbehaves. Yes, I have observed this with my own "clean" filter some time ago, but I have not yet tried hard enough to find a reproducible test case. > The bigger issue is however that the clean/smudge thing can be really slow when > dealing with large OO files. True indeed. -- Hannes