Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/4] cat-file: teach cat-file a '--literally' option

From: Charles Bailey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 08:44:34 +0100

> On 20 Apr 2015, at 06:30, Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Charles Bailey <[email-masked]> 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.