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.


When we did the original naming, it was envisioned that we may use
the name for fsck to make sure that the pack contains what it
contains in the name, but it never materialized.  The most prominent
and useful characteristic of the new naming scheme is that two
packfiles with the same name must be identical, and we may want to
start using it some time later once everybody repacked their packs
with the updated pack-objects.

But until that time comes, some packs in existing repositories will
hash to their names while others do not, so spelling out how the new
names are derived without saying older pack-objects used to name
their output differently may add more confusion than it is worth.

>       <base-name> to determine the name of the created file.
>       When this option is used, the two files are written in
>       <base-name>-<SHA-1>.{pack,idx} files.  <SHA-1> is a hash
> +     of the bytes of the packfile, and is written to the standard

"hash of the bytes of the packfile" tempts one to do

    $ sha1sum .git/objects/pack/pack-*.pack

but that is not what we expect. I wonder if there are better ways to
phrase it (or alternatively perhaps we want to make that expectation
hold by updating our code to hash)?
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