verify_pack.c vs verify-pack.c

verify_pack.c vs verify-pack.c

[Nicolas Pitre]

This is confusing.  Isn't possible to rename git-verify-pack to, say, 
git-fsck-pack instead?


Nicolas

Re: verify_pack.c vs verify-pack.c

[Junio C Hamano]

>>>>> "NP" == Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> writes:

NP> This is confusing.  Isn't possible to rename git-verify-pack to, say, 
NP> git-fsck-pack instead?

Yes it is possible (I am not attached to the name).  The
question is what to name it.

git-fsck-cache (which is not about cache, whose name somehow
implies it is trying to see consistency of the index file, but
in reality which is about the object database --- it should be
renamed to git-fsck-objects) does the same verification when the
pack is placed under objects/pack/, and the way I envision
git-verify/check/fsck-pack to be used is to run it _before_ you
place a pack in your object database; it is like running sha1sum
on a tarball before extracting it.

Also I would like to add some "info" output options to the
git-verify/check/fsck-pack program that:

 - lists all the contained SHA1 objects;
  - with their type and size;
  - with their delta depth (if deltified);
  - with the delta-data size for each delta step.

to help optimizing the git-pack-objects.

BTW, is there a filesystem that would house the source to the
core GIT that do not like names that differ only in underscore
and dash?

Re: verify_pack.c vs verify-pack.c

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> >>>>> "NP" == Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> writes:
> 
> NP> This is confusing.  Isn't possible to rename git-verify-pack to, say, 
> NP> git-fsck-pack instead?
> 
> Yes it is possible (I am not attached to the name).  The
> question is what to name it.

... or you could rename verify_pack.c to pack-check.c or whatever.

> BTW, is there a filesystem that would house the source to the
> core GIT that do not like names that differ only in underscore
> and dash?

Probably not.  It is just weird in a ls output that's all.  Certainly 
not a big issue.


Nicolas

Re: verify_pack.c vs verify-pack.c

[Jon Seymour]

I think this is odd too..

Why not rename the one containing the main as:

verify-pack-main.c

jon.