Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > >> Sure, but my intention was to synchronize the `--raw` vs the `--patch` >> output: the latter _already_ shows the correct hash. This here patch makes >> the hash in the former's output match the latter's. > > That is shooting for a wrong uniformity and breaking consistency > among the `--raw` modes. > ... > > [Footnote] > > *1* This division of labor to free "--raw" mode of anything remotely > unnecessary stems from the original diff plumbing design in May > 2005 where the "--raw" mode was the only output mode, and there > was a separate "git-diff-helper" (look for it in the mailing > list archive if you want to learn more) that reads a "--raw" > output and transforms it into the patch form. That "once we > have the raw diff, we can pipe it to post-processing and do more > interesting things" eventually led to the design of the diffcore > pipeline where we match up (A)dded and (D)eleted entries to > detect renames, etc. Having said all that. If somebody wants to shift the burden of computing object names from the consumers of "diff --raw" output to generators like diff-files and diff-index, I do not mind if it is done under a new command line option and done consistently for not just I-T-A additions, but "modified but not added yet" and "not modified but stat information is dirty" paths. As I said, I would not recommend it, though.
