On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 00:49, brian m. carlson <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > One of the required steps for the objectFormat extension is to implement > the loose object index. However, without support for > compatObjectFormat, we don't even know if the loose object index is > needed, so it makes sense to move that step to the compatObjectFormat > section. Do so. This makes sense to me. I know I thought out loud before that maybe there's some intention here and more specifically, maybe we want to *know* that this loose-object-idx is always there. But we'd still need to tiptoe around it in a SHA-1 repo, so even if we'd know that all proper SHA-256 repos have been generating such a file since day 1, that probably wouldn't help us much in terms of implementation/fallback strategies and whatnot. Martin
