Re: [PATCH 3/5] commit: replace the raw buffer with strbuf in read_graft_line

> In fact, the former is already how we represent the list of fake
> parents in the commit_graft structure, so I think patch 5/5 in this
> series does two unrelated things, one of which is bad (i.e. use of
> parse_oid_hex() is good; turning the FLEX_ARRAY at the end into a
> oid_array that requires a separate allocation of the array is bad).

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
>
>> I'd expect most of the GIT_MAX constants to eventually go away in favor
>> of "struct object_id", but that will still be using the same "big enough
>> to hold any hash" size under the hood.
>
> Indeed.  It is good to see major contributors are in agreement ;-)
> I'd expect that an array of "struct object_id" would be how a fixed
> number of object names would be represented, i.e.
>
>         struct object_id thing[num_elements];
>
> instead of an array of uchar that is MAX bytes long, i.e.
>
>         unsigned char name[GIT_MAX_RAWSZ][num_elements];
>
> In fact, the former is already how we represent the list of fake
> parents in the commit_graft structure, so I think patch 5/5 in this
> series does two unrelated things, one of which is bad (i.e. use of
> parse_oid_hex() is good; turning the FLEX_ARRAY at the end into a
> oid_array that requires a separate allocation of the array is bad).
>
>> Agreed. Most code should be dealing with the abstract concept of a hash
>> and shouldn't have to care about the size. I really like parse_oid_hex()
>> for that reason (and I think parsing is the main place we've found that
>> needs to care).
>
> Yes.