Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 11:53:11PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
>> Clarify the hash-object docs to explicitly note that the --literally
>> option guarantees that a loose object will be written, but that a
>> normal -w ("write") invocation doesn't.
>
> I had to double-check here: you mean that _when_ we are writing an
> object, "--literally" would always write loose, right?
>
>> At first I thought talking about "loose object" in the docs was a
>> mistake in 83115ac4a8 ("git-hash-object.txt: document --literally
>> option", 2015-05-04), but as is clear from 5ba9a93b39 ("hash-object:
>> add --literally option", 2014-09-11) this was intended all along.
>
> Hmm. After reading both of those, I do think it's mostly an
> implementation detail. I would not be at all surprised to find that the
> test suite relies on this (e.g., cleaning up with rm
> .git/objects/ab/cd1234). But I suspect we also rely on that for the
> non-literal case, too. ;)
>
> So I am on the fence. In some sense it doesn't hurt to document the
> behavior, but I'm not sure I would want to lock us in to any particular
> behavior, even for --literally. The intent of the option (as I recall)
> really is just "let us write whatever trash we want as an object,
> ignoring all quality checks".
I thik that this implemetation detail of `--literally` is here to stay;
how would you otherwise fix the issue if garbage object makes Git crash?
However, I would prefer to have options state _intent_; if there is
legitimate need for a tool that creates loose objects, it would be
better to have separate `--loose` option to `git hash-object` (which
would imply `-w`, otherwise it doesn't have sense).
>> --literally::
>> - Allow `--stdin` to hash any garbage into a loose object which might not
>> + Allow for hashing arbitrary data which might not
>> otherwise pass standard object parsing or git-fsck checks. Useful for
>> stress-testing Git itself or reproducing characteristics of corrupt or
>> - bogus objects encountered in the wild.
>> + bogus objects encountered in the wild. When writing objects guarantees
>> + that the written object will be a loose object, for ease of debugging.
>
> I had to read this last sentence a few times to parse it. Maybe a comma
> before guarantees would help? Or even:
>
> When writing objects, this option guarantees that the written object
> will be a loose object, for ease of debugging.
I agree that this reads better.
Regards,
--
Jakub Narębski
