From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 19:37:06 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pack-objects: name pack files after trailer hash
Message-ID: <xmqqsitsoae5.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20131216192830.GA30238@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:19:33AM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>
>> >              I was tempted to explicitly say something like "this is
>> > opaque and meaningless to you, don't rely on it", but I don't know that
>> > there is any need.
>> [...]
>> > On top of jk/name-pack-after-byte-representations, naturally.
>> 
>> I think there is --- if someone starts caring about the SHA-1 used,
>> they won't be able to act on old packfiles that were created before
>> this change.  How about something like the following instead?
>
> Right, my point was that I do not think anybody has ever cared, and I do
> not see them starting now. But that is just my intuition.
>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/git-pack-objects.txt b/Documentation/git-pack-objects.txt
>> index d94edcd..cdab9ed 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/git-pack-objects.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/git-pack-objects.txt
>> @@ -51,8 +51,7 @@ base-name::
>>  	<base-name> to determine the name of the created file.
>>  	When this option is used, the two files are written in
>>  	<base-name>-<SHA-1>.{pack,idx} files.  <SHA-1> is a hash
>> -	of the sorted object names to make the resulting filename
>> -	based on the pack content, and written to the standard
>> +	based on the pack content and is written to the standard
>
> I'm fine with that. I was worried it would get clunky, but the way you
> have worded it is good.

Our mails crossed; I think the above is good.

Thanks.