Does a commit object always have exactly one tree object?
I can't think of a scenario where it wouldn't be the case but I also can't see any documentation that explicitly states it.
3
-
Why don't you ls-tree a commit and see?matt– matt2022-04-14 11:21:58 +00:00Commented Apr 14, 2022 at 11:21
-
It's like asking, if a man can have two wives? There's no objective limitation, it's just not always designed to be this wayAlexey S. Larionov– Alexey S. Larionov2022-04-14 11:22:37 +00:00Commented Apr 14, 2022 at 11:22
-
1@AlexeyLarionov: As someone who lived in Utah for a while, I'll note that actually it's the bordering states that have more of the FLDS families. 😀torek– torek2022-04-14 11:27:21 +00:00Commented Apr 14, 2022 at 11:27
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
Does a commit object always have exactly one [top-level] tree object?
Yes.
I can't think of a scenario where it wouldn't be the case but I also can't see any documentation that explicitly states it.
It's part of the design: without it, git rev-parse commit^{tree} would not have an unambiguous result.
One can envision a system related to Git in which commits can store multiple trees,1 but a number of design issues would need to be resolved first.
1I've thought about this in several contexts, including the "submodules are wrong, subtrees are better but need better support" one. I have not resolved everything. 😀
Note that the commit object is also required to have exactly one author and one committer line; git fsck will object to the commit if these are malformed.
