Re: [PATCH v8 2/4] cat-file: teach cat-file a '--literally' option

[Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>]

On April 20, 2015 1:14:34 PM GMT+05:30, Charles Bailey <charles@hashpling.org> wrote:
>> On 20 Apr 2015, at 06:30, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Charles Bailey <charles@hashpling.org> writes:
>> 
>>> The option isn't a true opposite of hash-object's --literally
>because
>>> that also allows the creation of known types with invalid contents
>(e.g.
>>> corrupt trees) whereas cat-file is quite happy to show the
>_contents_ of
>>> such corrupt objects even without --literally.
>> 
>> Not really.  If you create an object with corrupt type string (e.g.
>"BLOB"
>> instead of "blob"), cat-file would not be happy.
>
>Sorry, the emphasis should have been on "complete" of "complete
>opposite".  There are some types of bad objects that can be created
>only
>with hash-object --literally (malformed tag or tree), for which
>cat-file
>works with fine and there are other types (pun unintended - BLOB,
Sorry, but I didn't get you, broken objects created using hash-object --literally do not work with cat-file without the --literally option.
>wobble, etc.) for which --literally/--unchecked is required with
>cat-file.
>
>So I meant that cat-file's --literally is only a partial "opposite" or
>analogue of hash-object's.
>
>--allow-invalid-types? --force (in the sense of "suppress some possible
>errors")? It's not a big thing but I'm aware that if we can find a
>better
>name then now would be the best moment. If not, then --literally it is.

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.