[PATCH v2 1/1] setup: recognise extensions.objectFormat

2018-01-27 Thread Patryk Obara
This extension selects which hashing algorithm from vtable should be used for reading and writing objects in the object store. At the moment supports only single value (sha-1). In case value of objectFormat is an unknown hashing algorithm, Git command will fail with following message: fatal: u

Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] setup: recognise extensions.objectFormat

2018-01-28 Thread brian m. carlson
On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 01:36:17AM +0100, Patryk Obara wrote: > This extension selects which hashing algorithm from vtable should be > used for reading and writing objects in the object store. At the moment > supports only single value (sha-1). I think you want an "it" here: "At the moment *it* s

Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] setup: recognise extensions.objectFormat

2018-01-29 Thread Jeff King
On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 01:36:17AM +0100, Patryk Obara wrote: > This extension selects which hashing algorithm from vtable should be > used for reading and writing objects in the object store. At the moment > supports only single value (sha-1). > > In case value of objectFormat is an unknown has

Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] setup: recognise extensions.objectFormat

2018-01-30 Thread Patryk Obara
On 30/01/2018 02:38, Jeff King wrote: On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 01:36:17AM +0100, Patryk Obara wrote: This extension selects which hashing algorithm from vtable should be used for reading and writing objects in the object store. At the moment supports only single value (sha-1). In case value of

Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] setup: recognise extensions.objectFormat

2018-01-30 Thread Jeff King
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 05:30:04PM +0100, Patryk Obara wrote: > > I don't have a strong opinion on this, but it does feel a little funny > > to add this extension now, before we quite know what the code that uses > > it is going to look like (or maybe we're farther along there than I > > realize).

Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] setup: recognise extensions.objectFormat

2018-01-30 Thread Junio C Hamano
Jeff King writes: > Putting code in master is OK; we can always refactor it. But once we > add and document a user-facing config option like this, we have to > support it forever. So that's really the step I was wondering about: are > we sure this is what the user-facing config is going to look l