Re: [PATCH 1/3] name-hash: refactor polymorphic index_name_exists()

> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Since these two modes of operations are disjoint and have no code in
>>>> common (one searches index_state.name_hash; the other dir_hash), they
>>>> can be represented more naturally as distinct functions: one to search
>>>> for a file, and one for a directory.
>>>
>>> Good thinking.  Thanks for working on this; I agree with the general
>>> direction this series is going.
>>>
>>> I however wonder if it would be a good idea to rename the other one
>>> to {cache|index}_file_exists(), and even keep the *_name_exists()
>>> variant that switches between the two based on the trailing slash,
>>> to avoid breaking other topics in flight that may have added new
>>> callsites to *_name_exists().  Otherwise the new callsites will feed
>>> a path with a trailing slash to *_name_exists() and get a false
>>> result, no?
>>
>> An assert("no trailing /") was added to index_name_exists() precisely
>> for the purpose of catching cases of code incorrectly calling
>> index_name_exists() to search for a directory. No existing code in
>> 'master' trips the assertion (at least according to the tests),
>> however, the assertion may be annoying for topics in flight which do.
>>
>> Other than plopping these patches atop 'pu' and seeing if anything
>> breaks, what would be the "git way" of detecting in-flight topics
>> which add callers of index_name_exists()? (Excuse my git ignorance.)
>
> I would do a quick
>
> $ git diff master..pu | grep '^+.*_name_exists'
>
> which would be more conservative (it would also show an invocation
> moved from one place to another).