Jeff King writes:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:19:33AM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>
>> > I was tempted to explicitly say something like "this is
>> > opaque and meaningless to you, don't rely on it", but I don't know that
>> > there is any need.
>> [...]
>> > On top of jk/name-pac
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:33:11AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > to determine the name of the created file.
> > When this option is used, the two files are written in
> > -.{pack,idx} files. is a hash
> > + of the bytes of the packfile, and is written to the standard
>
> "hash
Jeff King writes:
> I was tempted to explicitly say something like "this is
> opaque and meaningless to you, don't rely on it", but I don't know that
> there is any need.
Thanks.
When we did the original naming, it was envisioned that we may use
the name for fsck to make sure that the pack cont
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:19:33AM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > I was tempted to explicitly say something like "this is
> > opaque and meaningless to you, don't rely on it", but I don't know that
> > there is any need.
> [...]
> > On top of jk/name-pack-after-byte-representations
Jeff King wrote:
> The original patch is in next, so here's one on top. I just updated the
> description.
Thanks.
> I was tempted to explicitly say something like "this is
> opaque and meaningless to you, don't rely on it", but I don't know that
> there is any need.
[...]
> On top o
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 08:41:38AM +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> The old naming scheme is documented in
> Documentation/git-pack-objects.txt, under "OPTIONS" -> "base-name":
>
> > base-name::
> > Write into a pair of files (.pack and .idx), using
> > to determine the name of the creat
On 12/05/2013 09:28 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> [...]
> This patch simply uses the pack trailer sha1 as the pack
> name. It should be similarly unique, but covers the exact
> representation of the objects. Other parts of git should not
> care, as the pack name is returned by pack-objects and is
> essent
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 02:59:45PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > One test needs to be updated, because it actually corrupts a
> > pack and expects that re-packing the corrupted bytes will
> > use the same name. It won't anymore, but we can easily just
> > use the name that pack-objects hands ba
Jeff King writes:
> The second half would be to simplify git-repack. The current behavior is
> to replace the old packfile with a tricky rename dance. Which is still
> correct, but overly complicated. We should be able to just drop the new
> packfile, since we know the bytes are identical (or ren
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> Subject: pack-objects: name pack files after trailer hash
>
> Our current scheme for naming packfiles is to calculate the
> sha1 hash of the sorted list of objects contained in the
> packfile. This gives us a unique name, so we are reasonably
> s
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 11:04:18AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> > Yes. And this is why the packfile name algorithm is horribly flawed. I
> > keep saying we should change it to name the pack using the last 20
> > bytes of the file but ... nobody has written the patch for that? :-)
>
> Totally agree.
11 matches
Mail list logo
