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.

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

Reply via email to