Re: [PATCH 1/2] Sanitize for_each_reflog_ent()

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Jakub Narebski wrote:
> >
> >> Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> >> ... 
> >> > My reasoning is that invalid entries should rather be ignored than be 
> >> > taken into account. So, to verify that you are not walking invalid data, 
> >> > you have to parse it anyway.
> >> 
> >> I think that Junio was talking about the fact, that if you for example
> >> do need only refname and sha1, there is no need to parse object at all.
> >> If you don't need to, don't parse.
> >
> > And it was exactly what _I_ was talking about, too:
> >
> > if there are invalid entries, you ignore them. So for example, if there is 
> > no timestamp and message, you don't want the osha1 or nsha1, because it is 
> > an _invalid_ record.
> 
> That's fine.  I applied your patch with minimum fixups so that
> it does not make the surviving records _invalid_ ones after
> "reflog expire" runs ;-).