From: "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
To: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] Define an extended tree format
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2025 21:45:29 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aN2g-RCLVuUYD7h2@fruit.crustytoothpaste.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251001211140.GA140550@peff.net>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1907 bytes --]
On 2025-10-01 at 21:11:40, Jeff King wrote:
> So it all works as expected, but I feel like it's mostly by accident. My
> gut feeling is that we probably wanted something like this to protect us
> from confusion:
>
> index 06ad74db22..295b0c6318 100644
> --- a/read-cache.c
> +++ b/read-cache.c
> @@ -719,6 +719,8 @@ int add_to_index(struct index_state *istate, const char *path, struct stat *st,
> if (S_ISDIR(st_mode)) {
> if (repo_resolve_gitlink_ref(the_repository, path, "HEAD", &oid) < 0)
> return error(_("'%s' does not have a commit checked out"), path);
> + if (oid.algo != hash_algo_by_ptr(the_repository->hash_algo))
> + return error(_("object format %s of '%s' is incompatible with this repository (%s)"), hash_algos[oid.algo].name, path, the_repository->hash_algo->name);
> while (namelen && path[namelen-1] == '/')
> namelen--;
> }
>
> Of course that is strictly worse for somebody who is relying on the
> current accidental behavior. ;) And in the long run, I think this is the
> spot we'd want to hook to do whatever massaging we need (whether
> converting to the equivalent in-repo algorithm, or hacking up the name
> to store the foreign hash).
I think sending in this patch is a good first step right now. The
intention of the transition document is that the code is in one and only
one hash algorithm at a time and it would be better to reject this case
until we're ready to wire it up correctly than end up with data that's
corrupt down the line.
> I also won't be at all surprised if you've run across this already in
> your interop work.
I have not, since it's primarily involved working with the testsuite and
some test repositories. I know that submodules are broken in interop
mode; I didn't need to test that until I was writing code to make them
not-broken.
--
brian m. carlson (they/them)
Toronto, Ontario, CA
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-01 21:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-01 0:58 [RFC PATCH 0/1] Extended tree format for mixed submodules and conflicts brian m. carlson
2025-10-01 0:58 ` [RFC PATCH 1/1] Define an extended tree format brian m. carlson
2025-10-01 16:37 ` Junio C Hamano
2025-10-01 17:41 ` Jeff King
2025-10-01 21:11 ` Jeff King
2025-10-01 21:19 ` Junio C Hamano
2025-10-01 21:45 ` brian m. carlson [this message]
2025-10-01 23:00 ` Jeff King
2025-10-01 22:59 ` Jeff King
2025-10-01 21:21 ` Elijah Newren
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aN2g-RCLVuUYD7h2@fruit.crustytoothpaste.net \
--to=sandals@crustytoothpaste.net \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).