[PATCH] index-format.txt: remove outdated list of supported extensions

[PATCH] index-format.txt: remove outdated list of supported extensions

[SZEDER Gábor]

The first section of 'Documentation/technical/index-format.txt'
mentions that "Git currently supports cache tree and resolve undo
extensions", but then goes on, and in the "Extensions" section
describes not only these two, but six other extensions [1].

Remove this sentence, as it's misleading about the status of all those
other extensions.

Alternatively we could keep that sentence and update the list of
extensions, but that might well lead to a recurring issue, because
apparently this list is never updated when a new index extension is
added.

[1] Split index, untracked cache, FS monitor cache, end of index
    entry, index entry offset table and sparse directory entries.

Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com>
---
 Documentation/technical/index-format.txt | 2 --
 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/technical/index-format.txt b/Documentation/technical/index-format.txt
index 65da0daaa5..f691c20ab0 100644
--- a/Documentation/technical/index-format.txt
+++ b/Documentation/technical/index-format.txt
@@ -26,8 +26,6 @@ Git index format
      Extensions are identified by signature. Optional extensions can
      be ignored if Git does not understand them.
 
-     Git currently supports cache tree and resolve undo extensions.
-
      4-byte extension signature. If the first byte is 'A'..'Z' the
      extension is optional and can be ignored.
 
-- 
2.37.1.527.g8ff01757f9

Re: [PATCH] index-format.txt: remove outdated list of supported extensions

[Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason]

On Mon, Jul 18 2022, SZEDER Gábor wrote:

> The first section of 'Documentation/technical/index-format.txt'
> mentions that "Git currently supports cache tree and resolve undo
> extensions", but then goes on, and in the "Extensions" section
> describes not only these two, but six other extensions [1].
>
> Remove this sentence, as it's misleading about the status of all those
> other extensions.
>
> Alternatively we could keep that sentence and update the list of
> extensions, but that might well lead to a recurring issue, because
> apparently this list is never updated when a new index extension is
> added.
>
> [1] Split index, untracked cache, FS monitor cache, end of index
>     entry, index entry offset table and sparse directory entries.
>
> Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/technical/index-format.txt | 2 --
>  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)

Note that there's a conflict with my series to move this to
gitformat-index(5), although the conflict is easily solved:
https://lore.kernel.org/git/patch-v4-6.8-858ce9c6999-20220718T132911Z-avarab@gmail.com/

> diff --git a/Documentation/technical/index-format.txt b/Documentation/technical/index-format.txt
> index 65da0daaa5..f691c20ab0 100644
> --- a/Documentation/technical/index-format.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/technical/index-format.txt
> @@ -26,8 +26,6 @@ Git index format
>       Extensions are identified by signature. Optional extensions can
>       be ignored if Git does not understand them.
>  
> -     Git currently supports cache tree and resolve undo extensions.
> -
>       4-byte extension signature. If the first byte is 'A'..'Z' the
>       extension is optional and can be ignored.

I wonder if we should instead say : git currently supports various index
extensions, see <asciidoc syntax to link to section below>.

Re: [PATCH] index-format.txt: remove outdated list of supported extensions

[Junio C Hamano]

SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> writes:

> The first section of 'Documentation/technical/index-format.txt'
> mentions that "Git currently supports cache tree and resolve undo
> extensions", but then goes on, and in the "Extensions" section
> describes not only these two, but six other extensions [1].
>
> Remove this sentence, as it's misleading about the status of all those
> other extensions.
>
> Alternatively we could keep that sentence and update the list of
> extensions, but that might well lead to a recurring issue, because
> apparently this list is never updated when a new index extension is
> added.

Yup, I tend to agree that the sentence does not add much being here
and insisting that the list must be kept up to date creates more
work of dubious value.  If we didn't support any extensions, we
wouldn't be talking about them in this section, so saying that we
support some and we will list them later does not add much value,
either.

> [1] Split index, untracked cache, FS monitor cache, end of index
>     entry, index entry offset table and sparse directory entries.
>
> Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/technical/index-format.txt | 2 --
>  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)

Thanks, will queue.