Re: [PATCH 0/6] commit-graph: use 'struct object_directory *' everywhere

> On 1/31/2020 5:30 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 03:00:40PM -0800, Taylor Blau wrote:
> >
> >> This series became a little bit longer than I was expecting it to be, so
> >> here is the high-level structure:
> >>
> >>   - 1/6 fixes a bug in a test that would cause a subsequent failure if
> >>     unaddressed.
> >>
> >>   - 2/6 does the first half of the removal by using 'struct
> >>     object_directory *'s within the 'commit_graph' structure.
> >>
> >>   - 4/6 does the second half by removing 'char *object_dir' usage in the
> >>     'write_commit_graph_context' structure.
> >>
> >>   - 5/6 ties 2/6 and 4/6 together by removing all path normalization
> >>     completely, fixing the uninitialized read bug.
> >>
> >>   - And 6/6 cleans up.
> >
> > With the exception of the patch-ordering discussion in the sub-thread
> > with Martin, this looks good to me.
>
> I agree. Martin's comment is a good one. I can't find anything else
> to improve the series.

> > Patch 3 is a change in user-visible behavior, as it restricts how
> > --object-dir can be used (it must be the main object-dir or an alternate
> > within the repository). I don't _think_ anybody would care, as the
> > semantics of those options seemed kind of ill-defined to me in the first
> > place. But it's worth calling out as a potential risk. I suppose the
> > alternative is to make a one-off fake "struct object_directory" within
> > the process that isn't connected to the repository. But if nobody cares,
> > I'd just as soon avoid that.
>
> I think that this change of behavior is fine, especially because if
> someone writes a commit-graph to an --object-dir that is not an
> alternate, then that repo will not discover the new commit-graph
> anyway.

> I do like that you state a possible work-around in case someone shows
> up with a legitimate use case for a non-alternate object-dir.
>
> Thanks,
> -Stolee