Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:
> Example output:
>
> ...
> broken link from tree b5eb6ff... (refs/stash@{<date>}~37:)
> to blob ec5cf80...
The objective makes sense, and their progression is very nicely
structured. I can "smell" that these are going in the right
direction only with a cursory scan of the three patches.
> Originally, I intended to teach name-rev a new mode where it would also
> name objects other than commits and tags,...
As to having it in name-rev, it is still a "good to have" for an
object that does exist. It would be "super nice" if it also worked
for a missing object. It makes tons of sense from the end-user UI
point of view to have this feature there.
I however agree with you that it is sensible to do this in "fsck"
first and leave the "good to have" to later, because (1) naming an
arbitrary blob like this needs full object-store scan like "fsck"
does anyway, and (2) the primary occasion users would want to use
the "super nice" part of the feature is when they discover an object
is "missing", and the first thing they would want to run in such a
case anyway is "fsck".
So, in short, I very much like them.
--
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