Re: [PATCH 1/4] rebase -i: demonstrate obscure loose object cache bug

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Mar 14, 2019, 00:05 UTC
Message-ID: <20190314000511.GA31968@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1903132322420.41@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 11:27:02PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

> > We have get_oid_commit() and get_oid_committish() already. Should rebase
> > just be using those? (I think we probably want "commit()", because we do
> > not expect a "pick" line to have a tag, for example.
> 
> I did think about this while developing this patch series, and decided
> against conflating concerns.

Yeah, I'd definitely agree it is a separate topic.

> And I was totally right to do so! Because I do have an internal ticket
> that talks about allowing `reset v2.20.1`, which is a tag, not a commit.

Thanks for that example. I agree it's plausible for somebody to be using a tag there, so committish() is probably the better option.

(It also doesn't really hurt disambiguation much; in any given repo, commits tend to be dwarfed by trees and blobs by an order of magnitude, and tags are even an order of magnitude smaller than commits).

-Peff