> On 20 Apr 2015, at 06:30, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > Charles Bailey <char...@hashpling.org> writes: > >> The option isn't a true opposite of hash-object's --literally because >> that also allows the creation of known types with invalid contents (e.g. >> corrupt trees) whereas cat-file is quite happy to show the _contents_ of >> such corrupt objects even without --literally. > > Not really. If you create an object with corrupt type string (e.g. "BLOB" > instead of "blob"), cat-file would not be happy.
Sorry, the emphasis should have been on "complete" of "complete opposite". There are some types of bad objects that can be created only with hash-object --literally (malformed tag or tree), for which cat-file works with fine and there are other types (pun unintended - BLOB, wobble, etc.) for which --literally/--unchecked is required with cat-file. So I meant that cat-file's --literally is only a partial "opposite" or analogue of hash-object's. --allow-invalid-types? --force (in the sense of "suppress some possible errors")? It's not a big thing but I'm aware that if we can find a better name then now would be the best moment. If not, then --literally it is. -- 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
