From: Patrick Steinhardt Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2025 06:36:19 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] packfile: rename `packfile_store_get_all_packs()` Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On Wed, Oct 08, 2025 at 04:48:21PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > On Tue, Oct 07, 2025 at 02:41:12PM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > --- > > builtin/fast-import.c | 4 ++-- > > builtin/pack-objects.c | 4 ++-- > > packfile.c | 2 +- > > packfile.h | 4 ++-- > > 4 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > Hmm. I wonder if we should perform this step at a later date. My fear is > that another topic in fight might introduce a new use of the "get_packs" > assuming the old semantics. > > Merging this topic and that hypothetical one together wouldn't produce a > textual conflict, but it could introduce bugs where the hypothetical new > code expects the old behavior. > > Perhaps I'm overthinking this, but figured I'd write down the concern > nonetheless. I think that in many cases, a callsite that doesn't handle MIDX'd packs specifically with `get_packs()` is almost guaranteed to be wrong in some cases anyway due to `get_packs()` and `get_all_packs()` influencing each other's results. In this series we already saw that the callsites handle this correctly even though they use `get_packs()`, and any new callsites would probably have to do the same. So I don't think this is too worrisome overall. Patrick