Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> I would think that a better approach here would be to start with some >> (per-se unrelated) series to teach update-ref some mode like >> hash-object's --literally, i.e. "YOLO this ref update". > > I disagree. I think this would be a job better suited to a > test-helper. Then we don't put tools into users' hands that > potentially corrupt the repository. I don't understand why hash-object > --literally is not a test helper either. As the person who invented the "--literally" option, I'd have to agree with this assessment. It does make life a little bit easier for those who hack on Git codebase and reimplementations of it, but little practical value for those who use Git every day [*]. If it were a tool to _dump_ the contents of a possibly corrupt object that the "--literally" option would have produced to make it easier to see by humans, I might be pursuaded to say that such a feature may be better in end-user accessible subcommands. But the reason why we invented "--literally" was specifically to create corrupt objects in test repository to see end-user accessible tools behave, and in hindsight, such a use case shouldn't have been a good justification to add the option. I wasn't following the discussion of this particular patch closely, so I do not know what is being discussed is a tool on the diagnosis side (for which I may say it is OK to give to end-usres) or on the currupting side (for which I would regret to add to end-user tools), but hopefully the above would help guiding the decision between the two. Thanks. [Footnote] * ... for any purpose other than creating a corrupt repository, asking somebody who is or claims to be a Git expert to figure out what is wrong in his or her repository, and either waste expert's time or have fun by watching the expert fail and gets embarrased, that is ;-)
