Re:Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] unbundle: introduce option VERIFY_BUNDLE_FSCK_FOLLOW_FETCH

From: Xing Xin <bupt_xingxin@163.com>
Date: Jun 11, 2024, 06:46 UTC
Message-ID: <1238d76b.6e25.190060c5b5d.Coremail.bupt_xingxin@163.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZmGmV8-QNMN643ou@tanuki>

At 2024-06-06 20:06:47, "Patrick Steinhardt" <ps@pks.im> wrote:

Show 26 quoted lines

>On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 08:21:30AM +0000, Xing Xin via GitGitGadget wrote:
>> From: Xing Xin <xingxin.xx@bytedance.com>
>
>Same here, the important part is not that we introduce the flag, but
>that we start using it in `unbundle_from_file()`.
>
>> diff --git a/bundle-uri.c b/bundle-uri.c
>> index 066ff788104..e7ebac6ce57 100644
>> --- a/bundle-uri.c
>> +++ b/bundle-uri.c
>> @@ -373,7 +373,7 @@ static int unbundle_from_file(struct repository *r, const char *file)
>>  	 * the prerequisite commits.
>>  	 */
>>  	if ((result = unbundle(r, &header, bundle_fd, NULL,
>> -			       VERIFY_BUNDLE_QUIET | VERIFY_BUNDLE_FSCK_ALWAYS)))
>> +			       VERIFY_BUNDLE_QUIET | VERIFY_BUNDLE_FSCK_FOLLOW_FETCH)))
>>  		return 1;
>>  
>>  	/*
>
>One thing that is a bit weird is that we first change `unbundle()` to
>use `FSCK_ALWAYS` in a preceding patch, and then convert it to use
>`FSCK_FOLLOW_FETCH` in the same series. It could be restructured a bit
>to first introduce the flags, only, while not modifying any of the
>callsites yet. Passing the respective flags would then be done in a
>separate commit.

This makes sense to me, thanks!

Xing Xin