Re: [RFC/PATCH] define the way new representation types are encoded in the pack
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Oct 30, 2011, 07:13 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vzkgjq7dc.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <7v4nyrrm1w.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
Show 10 quoted lines
> Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> writes: > >> Because all blobs in this tree object must be in a fixed order, and >> they won't likely have meaningful names nor permission, should >> CAT_TREE payload is a SHA-1 sequence of all blobs (or cat-trees if we >> want nested trees) instead? IOW the tree is integrated into cat-tree >> object, not as a separate tree object. > > I have no problem with that (I am not worried about minor details of the > actual implementation of cat-tree yet).
Side note. It should be renamed "split-object" or something if we go the route you suggest, as "tree"-ness of the actual representation is not essential.