On Tue, Sep 14 2021, Taylor Blau wrote: > On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 02:55:03PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: >> On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 12:51:24PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: >> >> > > >> + fprintf(data->f->fp, "%s%s\n", data->preferred ? "+" : "", >> > > >> + oid_to_hex(oid)); >> > > > >> > > > Just an idea: Maybe the file could be lines of "+\tOID\n" instead of >> > > > "+OID\n"? Lends itself more naturally to extension, use with the likes >> > > > of string_list_split() etc. >> > > >> > > Actually, even better a format like: >> > > >> > > "OID[\t+]\n" >> > > >> > > Or >> > > >> > > "OID[\tpreferred=1]\n" >> > >> > Sure, but I admit that I'm a little torn on this suggestion. I don't >> > want to be naive and say that we're never going to change this format >> > and paint ourselves into a corner. >> > >> > On the other hand, changing it does seem extremely unlikely to me, and >> > this tab-delimited thing feels like overkill compared to how simple the >> > '+' format is. >> > >> > So, I don't know. It's certainly easy enough to change now before we >> > lock it in, so I guess we should. >> >> I'm not sure I really see the point of making this infinitely >> extensible. This is mostly an internal interface between two Git >> programs. Sure, it's exposed to the user in the sense that they can use >> --refs-snapshot themselves. But if some writer wants to add a "foo" >> flag, do they really want to be able to do it in a way that they're >> _syntactically_ compatible with the older versions of Git, yet have no >> clue if their option was actually recognized and accepted? > > I like this perspective, and tend to agree. > > (I'm basically repeating what you're saying but) it seems to me that > trying to make the interface of `--refs-snapshot` compatible across > versions of Git is stretching what we consider to be our compatibility > guarantee given that: > > - the interface is basically expected to be private between `repack` > and `multi-pack-index`, and > > - an infinitely-extensible version of `--refs-snapshot` would still > have no way to tell the caller whether or not those new flags were > accepted > > So I tend to agree the existing format works fine and we shouldn't spend > a ton of time trying to over-engineer a solution. > > (FWIW, the `+` vs `-` thing is intentional; `--stdin-packs` uses `-` to > _exclude_ packs, but `+` here means "this one is special" not "exclude > this ref"). The suggestion I had offhand was just meant as an offhand "interesting, maybe easier like...", i.e. if you found it easier to split on \t, or check the hash size in the loop or whatever. I agree that this doesn't matter and should just be left to whatever you've got a taste for, thanks. This thread became more of a digression than I thought...
