From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] pack-objects: name pack files after trailer hash Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:37:06 -0800 Message-ID: References: <20131128092935.GC11444@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20131204200850.GB16603@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20131205160418.GA27869@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20131205202807.GA19042@sigill.intra.peff.net> <52AEAEB2.6060203@alum.mit.edu> <20131216190445.GB29324@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20131216191933.GE2311@google.com> <20131216192830.GA30238@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jonathan Nieder , Michael Haggerty , Shawn Pearce , Git Mailing List To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Dec 16 20:37:19 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Vsdyh-0004qZ-55 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 20:37:19 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755335Ab3LPThN (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Dec 2013 14:37:13 -0500 Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.35]:51931 "EHLO smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754787Ab3LPThL (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Dec 2013 14:37:11 -0500 Received: from smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 217685BBD3; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 14:37:11 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=MiaurPbKIDu5KzX3xfYdIo7pexI=; b=fwZgZT waYdcQ2+43fEAWqOE2WAAXnnrjFdKl6QY6Co9pCTYn13f3Xh6einq9DViYRwKcCl ksfcsV+uUBJ+4Ki0s7bkkopXbXi2oNu0oz0BO5TaRs/EdvCPXgXuvvml0TnKKJqB nVMJYCQseWpyzaBtSefbpylDZTxUH2mUcdQ/8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=XcUdrXMXoizl8khFB/EMOFh0fxfnFoir t0SYOEZh8xIUXb528yNjD7a+NvnBSiiTYavgc5W0gIhwMvp1vTzsjYFbKFB+uarn sU0Xwe87kIc394d7Ts2lWCFpr+UDiI46/UDPY2/JGhhUJwwQYGm378IEemh/O+zg E7/t9B0hpnk= Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0F805BBD2; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 14:37:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [72.14.226.9]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E69BD5BBD1; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 14:37:09 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20131216192830.GA30238@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Mon, 16 Dec 2013 14:28:30 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 745549C2-6689-11E3-9DAA-1B26802839F8-77302942!b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jeff King 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:: >> to determine the name of the created file. >> When this option is used, the two files are written in >> -.{pack,idx} files. 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.