Re: [PATCH 2/3] hash-object doc: elaborate on -w and --literally promises

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: May 28, 2019, 16:56 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq8suq4ix8.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <86woigp3ro.fsf@gmail.com>

Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> writes:

> I thik that this implemetation detail of `--literally` is here to stay;
> how would you otherwise fix the issue if garbage object makes Git crash?

By repacking, presumably ;-).

More importantly, there needs a way to extend "enum object_type" to allow unbounded number of arbitrary (garbage) types before we can allow --literally to record such a garbage type in a pack stream.

So I'd expect the implementation detail would stay for a long time. But there is nothing that says `--literally` inherently must write loose. It is plausible that a new implementation writes objects of known/valid types to a pack stream, while unknown/garbage types to loose objects.

> However, I would prefer to have options state _intent_; if there is
> legitimate need for a tool that creates loose objects, it would be
> better to have separate `--loose` option to `git hash-object` (which
> would imply `-w`, otherwise it doesn't have sense).

Yes, I very much agree with that.