Martin Fick <> writes:

> On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 04:53:36 pm Junio C Hamano 
> wrote:
>> Martin Fick <> writes:
>> > One suggestion would be to change the repack code to
>> > create pack filenames based on the sha1 of the
>> > contents of the pack file instead of on the sha1 of
>> > the objects in the packfile. ...
>> > I am not 100% sure if the change in naming convention I
>> > propose wouldn't cause any problems?  But if others
>> > agree it is a good idea, perhaps it is something a
>> > beginner could do?
>> I would not be surprised if that change breaks some other
>> people's reimplementation.  I know we do not validate
>> the pack name with the hash of the contents in the
>> current code, but at the same time I do remember that
>> was one of the planned things to be done while I and
>> Linus were working on the original pack design, which
>> was the last task we did together before he retired from
>> the maintainership of this project.
> Perhaps a config option?  One that becomes standard for git 
> 2.0?

Anything new is too late for Git 2.0, as we do not want to hold the
switching of push.default to "simple" too long.  End of this year
might be a bit too soon, but I want 2.0 to happen by the next

You can discuss, design the new naming and necessary transition plan
for existing repositories, reach a concensus and declare the name
switch in the future, and then schedule that for the next major
version bump after 2.0 happens.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to