From: brian m. carlson Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2025 21:45:29 GMT Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] Define an extended tree format Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20251001211140.GA140550@peff.net> On 2025-10-01 at 21:11:40, Jeff King wrote: > So it all works as expected, but I feel like it's mostly by accident. My > gut feeling is that we probably wanted something like this to protect us > from confusion: > > index 06ad74db22..295b0c6318 100644 > --- a/read-cache.c > +++ b/read-cache.c > @@ -719,6 +719,8 @@ int add_to_index(struct index_state *istate, const char *path, struct stat *st, > if (S_ISDIR(st_mode)) { > if (repo_resolve_gitlink_ref(the_repository, path, "HEAD", &oid) < 0) > return error(_("'%s' does not have a commit checked out"), path); > + if (oid.algo != hash_algo_by_ptr(the_repository->hash_algo)) > + return error(_("object format %s of '%s' is incompatible with this repository (%s)"), hash_algos[oid.algo].name, path, the_repository->hash_algo->name); > while (namelen && path[namelen-1] == '/') > namelen--; > } > > Of course that is strictly worse for somebody who is relying on the > current accidental behavior. ;) And in the long run, I think this is the > spot we'd want to hook to do whatever massaging we need (whether > converting to the equivalent in-repo algorithm, or hacking up the name > to store the foreign hash). I think sending in this patch is a good first step right now. The intention of the transition document is that the code is in one and only one hash algorithm at a time and it would be better to reject this case until we're ready to wire it up correctly than end up with data that's corrupt down the line. > I also won't be at all surprised if you've run across this already in > your interop work. I have not, since it's primarily involved working with the testsuite and some test repositories. I know that submodules are broken in interop mode; I didn't need to test that until I was writing code to make them not-broken. -- brian m. carlson (they/them) Toronto, Ontario, CA