Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > On Mon, Feb 21 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > I think what this is trying to make sure is that it (1) enabled the > > combination and (2) uses the object store of the submodule when > > disambiguating names of the objects from the submodule, because the > > author suspects that the reason why these two options were made > > incompatible in the first place was because long time ago there > > wasn't a way to ask "here is an object name---please uniquify in the > > context of _that_ repository". So it is understandable to prepare > > an object X in a submodule and another object Y in the superproject, > > such that the abbreviated name of X in the context of the submodule > > is different from the abbreviated name of X in the context of the > > superproject (i.e. if X were in the superproject's object store, > > because the object names of X and Y share the prefix, it may require > > longer prefix to disambiguate from Y), and make sure that the uniquify > > is indeed happening in the context of the submodule. > > > > So, you are only concentrating on (1) but forgetting why the author > > wants (2). > > Indeed. That makes sense, but it would really help to e.g. have the test > description make that goal explicit. That indeed was why I did that (thanks, Junio). It looks like it doesn't work with other hash algorithms, and maybe it's too much paranoia on my part. I'll send an updated version following Ævar's suggestion.
