On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 09:40:09PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote: > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Jeff King <p...@peff.net> wrote: > > One of the purposes of "git replace --edit" is to help a > > user repair objects which are malformed or corrupted. > > Usually we pretty-print trees with "ls-tree", which is much > > easier to work with than the raw binary data. However, some > > forms of corruption break the tree-walker, in which case our > > pretty-printing fails, rendering "--edit" useless for the > > user. > > > > This patch introduces a "--raw" option, which lets you edit > > the binary data in these instances. > > Is there a possibility that any of the other git-replace modes will > grow a need for "raw"? If not, would it make sense to make this > specific to "edit" as --edit=raw?
I doubt that any other modes will want it, as it is about the pretty-printing step which is pretty specific to --edit. However, making it "--edit=raw" also precludes adding other "modes" to --edit. I do not have any in mind, but I do not see it as impossible. Preclude is maybe a strong word. You could have "--edit=raw,flag1,flag2", but then we are essentially reinventing an option parser inside --edit's value. Not to mention that you cannot do "--no-raw", even without other flags being added. -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
