From: karthik nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 12:50:30 GMT
Subject: Re: [RFC] git cat-file "literally" option
Message-ID: <54E48A96.8010301@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <54E45DD7.205@gmail.com>


On 02/18/2015 03:09 PM, karthik nayak wrote:
> Hey,
> After reading 
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/256878
> I have started working on the git cat file --literally option.
>
> I'm wondering if I should implement it as an add on to the existing 
> options,
> wherein we could say "git cat-file (t | -s | -e | -p | <type> | 
> --texconv) --literally <object>"
> so that it would be able to print the required data literally or 
> should I implement it such that
> we could say "git cat-file (-t | -s | -e | -p | <type> | --texconv | 
> --literally) <object>"
> so it would just give all information about the given object. (Maybe 
> like the -p option?)
>
> For example :
> if  I create a bogus object like
>
> git hash-object -t bogus --literally -w --stdin </dev/null
>
> Should I implement
> git cat-file -t --literally 49993fe130c4b3bf24857a15d7969c396b7bc187
> or should I implement
> git cat-file --literally 49993fe130c4b3bf24857a15d7969c396b7bc187
> To get information pertaining to the object "bogus:.
>
>
> What do you people think?
> Thanks
> -Karthik
Also,
Is there any way I can get the type of object made via git hash-object 
--literally. The problem I'm facing is "sha1_object_info()" returns a 
object_type enum, so objects not specified there are considered as errors.