Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] sha1_loose_object_info: do not complain out loud on non-existent objects
- From
Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
- Date
- May 24, 2012, 13:12 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CACsJy8CpqR4WGoYqNpUESigqTgHr0cL4gK2t7sCcb8P5StX3-w@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vvcjm28ff.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 8 quoted lines
>> while it's still making sense for me, i think it's more logical to >> move the check to the caller, where "entry in pack?" check is also >> done. > > I think most of the callers of sha1_object_info_extended() are using this > function, saying "We expect this object to exist somewhere, perhaps in > pack or perhaps in a loose form, and trying to see what it is", and they > rely on the first error message "unable to find" to be issued.
hmm.. if you see it from that angle, yes it makes sense
Show 5 quoted lines
> So in that sense, I do not see how this patch makes any sense at all. > Care to point out a codepath where we throw a random 20 bytes at it in > order to see if an object with the given object name exists? That would > be the only case where "unable to find" might be an unwanted error > message.
packed_delta_info(), fast-import (I think) and cat-file do not check for object existence before calling this.
-- Duy