From: Johannes Schindelin Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 23:40:02 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Sanitize for_each_reflog_ent() Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7vmz4sj6hb.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Hi, On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin 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 ;-). Ah! Missed that one. Thanks! Ciao, Dscho