From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 02:14:13 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] list-objects: filter objects in traverse_commit_list
Message-ID: <xmqqh8tttzwq.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20171116215725.k44e3alk2lq6bbwu@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> Those encodings don't necessarily need to be the same, because they're
> about transport. Inside each process we'd have the raw bytes, and encode
> them as appropriate to whatever sub-program we're going to pass to (or
> not at all if we skip the shell for sub-processes, which is usually a
> good idea).

Yes, I share the same feeling.  It does not help that the series
defines its own notion of arg_needs_armor() and uses it to set a
field called requires_armor that is not yet used, the definition of
"armor"ing being each byte getting encoded as two hexadecimal digits
without any sign (which makes me wonder what a receiver of
"deadbeef" would do---did it receive an armored string or a plain
one???).  I do not understand why these strings are not passed as
opaque sequences of bytes and instead converted at this low a layer.