From: karthik nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 15:52:47 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/4] cat-file: teach cat-file a '--literally' option
Message-ID: <553520CF.6070304@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150420091920.GA31279@hashpling.org>



On 04/20/2015 02:49 PM, Charles Bailey wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 02:27:44PM +0530, Karthik Nayak wrote:
> > Sorry, but I didn't get you, broken objects created using hash-object --literally do not work with cat-file without the --literally option.
>
> Perhaps an example would help:
>
> I cannot create a bad tree without --literally:
>
> $ echo total garbage | ./git hash-object -t tree --stdin -w
> fatal: corrupt tree file
> $ echo total garbage | ./git hash-object -t tree --stdin -w --literally
> fa2905d47028d00baec739f6d73540bb2a75c6f7
>
> but I can use cat-file without --literally to query the contents and
> information about the object as it stands.
>
> $ ./git cat-file tree fa2905d47028d00baec739f6d73540bb2a75c6f7
> total garbage
> $ ./git cat-file -t fa2905d47028d00baec739f6d73540bb2a75c6f7
> tree
> $ ./git cat-file -s fa2905d47028d00baec739f6d73540bb2a75c6f7
> 14
>
> As far as I could tell - and please correct me if I've misunderstood,
> cat-file's literally is about dealing with unrecognized types whereas
> hash-object's --literally is about both creating objects with bad types
> and invalid objects of "recognized" types. This latter scenario is where
> the option name "literally" makes the most sense.
Yes. What you're saying is correct, but it also makes sense as we're asking
"cat-file" to give us information about the object irrespective of the type of the
object, hence asking it to literally print the information. Also it stays as a compliment
to "hash-object --literally", which is already existing.
>
> Charles.
>