From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 01:02:05 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] git-hash-object: Add --stdin-paths option
Message-ID: <7vlk9pv08i.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20071026231902.GC2519@lavos.net>

bdowning@lavos.net (Brian Downing) writes:

> On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 02:00:47PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> In addition, if you are enhancing cat-file to spew chunked
>> output out, I suspect that there should be a mode of operation
>> for hash-object that eats that data format.  IOW, this pipe
>> 
>> 	git-cat-file --batch <list-of-sha1 |
>>         git-hash-object --batch
>> 
>> should be an intuitive no-op, shouldn't it?
>
> I think that's an obviously good thing to do.  However, given your
> suggested output format (which I also like):
>
>>    * git-cat-file --batch <list-of-sha1
>> 
>>      outputs a record of this form
>> 
>>           <sha1> SP <type> SP <size> LF <contents> LF
>> 
>>      for each of the input lines.
>
> What should the input behavior be?  Obviously the sha1 will probably
> not be known on the input side.  Should that simply be optional (i.e.
> it will accept either "<sha1> SP <type> SP <size>" or "<type> SP <size>"
> or should it only accept the latter, and a dummy sha1 will need to be
> filled in if the sha1 is not known (presumably "000...000")?

Yeah, you caught me ;-)

Either making it optional or requiring a dummy value would work.
If a non-dummy value is given, we could use it to validate it.

But that would not be a useful application anyway.  So perhaps
just the sequence of "<type> SP <size> LF <contents> LF" would
be the most sensible thing to do.