Re: RE: more git updates..

Petr Baudis
2005-04-10T22:11:23Z

Dear diary, on Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 12:07:37AM CEST, I got a letter
where "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com> told me that...
..snip..
> >Hey, I may end up being wrong, and yes, maybe I should have done a
> >two-level one. The good news is that we can trivially fix it later (even
> >dynamically - we can make the "sha1 object tree layout" be a per-tree
> >config option, and there would be no real issue, so you could make small
> >projects use a flat version and big projects use a very deep structure
> >etc). You'd just have to script some renames to move the files around.
>
> It depends on how many eco-system shell scripts get built that need to
> know about the layout ... if some shell/perl "libraries" encode this
> filename layout (and people use them) ... then switching later would
> indeed be painless.

FWIW, my short-term plans include support for monotone-like hash ID
shortening - it's enough to use the shortest leading unique part of the
ID to identify the revision. I will poke to the object repository for
that. I also already have Randy Dunlap's git lsobj, which will list all
objects of a specified type (very useful especially when looking for
orphaned commits and such rather lowlevel work).

--
Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
98% of the time I am right. Why worry about the other 3%.