Augie Fackler <augie@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> When debugging the pack protocol, it is sometimes useful to >> store the verbatim pack that we sent or received on the >> wire. Looking at the on-disk result is often not helpful for >> a few reasons: >> >> 1. If the operation is a clone, we destroy the repo on >> failure, leaving nothing on disk. >> >> 2. If the pack is small, we unpack it immediately, and the >> full pack never hits the disk. >> >> 3. If we feed the pack to "index-pack --fix-thin", the >> resulting pack has the extra delta bases added to it. >> >> We already have a GIT_TRACE_PACKET mechanism for tracing >> packets. Let's extend it with GIT_TRACE_PACK to dump the >> verbatim packfile. > > FWIW, this also works for me - I have no preference between my patches > and Jeff's. I suspect yours are much better given that you have a clue > about git internals ;). > > One bit of feedback is that it might be worth mentioning (though I > don't feel strongly) that GIT_TRACE_PACK works with or without > GIT_TRACE_PACKET - that wasn't immediately obvious to me, but it makes > sense once I read the code. > > Thanks! Thanks, both. I think this series makes sense. As to the documentation, I have a feeling that, unless the reader and/or the user intimately knows that TRACE_PACK is implemented by hooking into the same mechanism that TRACE_PACKET needs to, s/he would not even wonder if TRACE_PACKET needs to be enabled when asking for TRACE_PACK. Yes, one is a proper substring of the other, but the similarity between the two stops there. While I do not think it would hurt very much to mention that they are independent, I have a slight suspicion that it might make it more likely to get user confused. -- 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