Re: Broken adding of cache entries

Dear diary, on Sun, May 08, 2005 at 07:22:31AM CEST, I got a letter where Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> told me that...

I wanted to merge with you, but I'd like to make some (mostly minor) nitpicks first.

Sorry for totally garbled whitespace and everything, this is just gpm.

--- e19665d8d42877246ac7e98a7c671d11adbe8b56/read-cache.c  (mode:100644)
+++ uncommitted/read-cache.c  (mode:100644)
+               char *ep = strchr(cp, '/');
+               if (ep == 0)

Please use NULL.

+static struct alternate_object_database
+{
+       char *base;
+       char *name;
+} *alt_odb;

The commonly accepted style is to have the { bracket on the same line as the struct identifier.

Sticking a brief explanation to prepare_alt_odb(), like "pass 0 allocates the array and pass 1 fills it" couldn't hurt, it took me a while of staring at it to figure out. There's also unused @buf variable. But I personally think all this alt_odb code is quite creepy. ;-)

--- e19665d8d42877246ac7e98a7c671d11adbe8b56/write-tree.c  (mode:100644)
+++ uncommitted/write-tree.c  (mode:100644)
-                       if (++unmerged > 10) {
+                       if (10 < ++funny) {

Do those changes make any sense? The former version is certainly much easier to read for me. I can live with it in the new code, but changing old code to it...

With the current update-cache protections, how can you legally achieve a cache with duplicate entries, so that you need to check for that in write-tree?

Thanks,