On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> Well, the main difference is that pack-files can be used for many things.
>
> For example, a web interface for getting a pack-file between two releases:
> say you knew you had version xyzzy, and you want to get version xyzzy+1,
> you could do that through webgit some way even with a "stupid" interface.
> Kay already had some patch to generate pack-files for something.
>
> The point being that pack-files are _not_ like objects. Pack-files are
> meant for communication. Having them in .git/objects/pack is just one
> special case.
Okay, I can see the use for them getting written to arbitrary paths; but I
think that it's worth having a canonical location for a pack that's being
used by the system (either not having been sent anywhere, or after having
been received). Perhaps git-pack-objects should have the base as a
optional argument, with a default of the filename in $GIT_DIR/objects/pack
and an option for sending just the pack file to stdout? I think that
covers everything in order of usefulness, and means that the program deals
with any filename that the user doesn't know in advance.
> > 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.
>
> We could sha1-sum the "sorted by SHA1" list, I guess.
That'd be good; then git-http-pull can validate the hash on the index and
be sure that a matching pack file from a different location still has the
same contents.
-Daniel
*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
