Hi Junio, On Sat, 13 Aug 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > > > New Features > > > > • Comes with Git 2.9.3. > > For future reference, what time (in UTC) of the day is convenient > for you to see an upstream tarball? Heh... I don't do tarballs anymore, I now use this newfangled tool to manage source code... "gyt" or something like that, it is called. :-) Given that between you and me there is currently a time zone difference of 9h (except for four weeks, two in spring, when it is only 8h, and two in fall, when it is 10h), I believe we cannot find a time that is convenient for both of us. But I also think it is fine, when I discover a new upstream Git version in the morning, I can spend all day on fixing any problems and on packaging the result ;-) > > • Sports a new --smudge option for git cat-file that lets it pass > > blob contents through smudge filters configured for the specified > > path. > > Perhaps we want to upstream this, together with a new "--clean" option > for git hash-object? No question about that. I just needed this in a hurry and short-circuited it into Git for Windows before submitting it upstream. > And after writing all of the above, I noticed that hash-object by > default uses the clean machinery and that can be turned off by giving > the "--no-filters" option. The reason why the option is not called > "--no-clean" is because it is not just about the clean filter but is > about using the entirety of convert_to_git() filter chain. Right, as is the --smudge option (it is about the entirety of convert_to_worktree()). > We probably should teach "hash-objects" to take "--filters" for > consistency. I actually thought about that, too. Which was one of the reasons I did not submit the patch to the Git mailing list first, as I expect several iterations to be necessary to get everything into `master`. > And then your "git cat-file" patch can be upstreamed with the option > renamed to (or with an additional synonym) "--filters", which would make > things consistent. Right. I would like to ask for a `--smudge` synonym nevertheless, just because I already use this. On the other hand, it is early enough to tell everybody who knows about this feature to change their invocation (anybody who would know about `--smudge` would be in that 1% of users that have read the release notes, so most likely would read the next release notes, too). Ciao, Dscho