Re: [PATCH] refs.c: add a function to sort a ref list, rather then sorting on add

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Apr 18, 2007, 19:36 UTC
Message-ID: <7vodllfpaj.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704172304380.16435@beast.quantumfyre.co.uk>

Julian Phillips <julian@quantumfyre.co.uk> writes:

Show 12 quoted lines

> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> ...
>> I think we would not call add_ref() to the same list with
>> duplicate names, unless (1) filesystem is grossly corrupt, (2)
>> somebody added a new ref while we are walking (how does
>> readdir() behave in such a case???), or (3) packed-refs file is
>> corrupt.
>
> This combined with the fact that the old code didn't check that the
> sha1 was the same suggests to me that this behaviour may actually have
> been a subtle bug?  Perhaps the best thing to do is die if we find two
> entries with the same name when sorting?

I am not sure what readdir() does if somebody adds a new ref while we are walking the directory; I am hoping we would not get the same thing in duplicates, but I dunno.

I think the most sensible thing to do is to check for duplicates, discarding if the SHA-1 match and otherwise dying.