On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >
> > So I would suggest either:
> > 
> >   - droping the packname parameter from git-pack-objects.  Make
> >     the packs always named pack-X{40}.pack (or just X{40}.pack);
> Well, regardless, we want to be able to specify which directory to write 
> them to. We don't necessarily want to write them to the current working 
> directory, nor do we want to write them to their eventual destination in 
> .git/objects/pack.
> In fact, the main current user ("git repack") really wants to write them 
> to a temporary file, and one that isn't even called "pack-xxx", since it 
> ends up doing cleanup with 
>       rm -f .tmp-pack-*
> in case a previous re-pack was interrupted (in which case it simply cannor
> know what the exact name was supposed to be).
> So the "basename" ends up being necessary and meaningful regardless. We do 
> _not_ want to remove that capability.

Shouldn't we do the same thing we do with object files? I don't see any
difference in desired behavior.

> >     also have verify-pack to verify the name of the packfile,
> >     and make sure X{40} part of the name matches what it claims
> >     to contain;
> Now, that would be fine, but it can't be done. Not the way things are laid 
> out. A SHA1 checksum depends on the order the data was checksummed in, and 
> we don't even save that.

Why not checksum it in a predictable order, either that of the pack file
or the index? We do care that it's something verifiable, so that people
can't cause intentional collisions (for a DoS) just by naming their packs
after existing packs that users might not have downloaded yet.

*This .sig left intentionally blank*

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to