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::
> <base-name> to determine the name of the created file.
> When this option is used, the two files are written in
> <base-name>-<SHA-1>.{pack,idx} files. <SHA-1> 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.
-Peff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html