Re: [PATCH] xdiff-interface: stop using the_repository
- From
René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de>
- Date
- Feb 15, 2026, 18:42 UTC
- Message-ID
- <ba0e8878-1f76-4491-badf-9f37364f4cec@web.de>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqq8qd14rfs.fsf@gitster.g>
On 2/9/26 9:01 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 34 quoted lines
> Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sun, Feb 8, 2026 at 5:47 AM René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de> wrote:
>>>
>> ...
>>> diff --git a/merge-ort.c b/merge-ort.c
>>> index e80e4f735a..a4103d56ed 100644
>>> --- a/merge-ort.c
>>> +++ b/merge-ort.c
>>> @@ -2136,9 +2136,9 @@ static int merge_3way(struct merge_options *opt,
>>> name2 = mkpathdup("%s:%s", opt->branch2, pathnames[2]);
>>> }
>>>
>>> - read_mmblob(&orig, o);
>>> - read_mmblob(&src1, a);
>>> - read_mmblob(&src2, b);
>>> + read_mmblob(&orig, the_repository->objects, o);
>>> + read_mmblob(&src1, the_repository->objects, a);
>>> + read_mmblob(&src2, the_repository->objects, b);
>>>
>>> merge_status = ll_merge(result_buf, path, &orig, base,
>>> &src1, name1, &src2, name2,
>>
>> A minor point, but could we use opt->repo instead of the_repository in
>> merge-ort?
>
> Great. If we have already an appropriate structure with the
> relevant data, using it is the most welcome.
>
>> So, if you want to go ahead with this and then I submit a later patch
>> that cleans them all up, that's fine too.
>
> True too, but as long as it is so obvious that "opt" here has .repo
> member that we can use, I do not see a reason not to.Thanks for solving that issue! I would have sent a separate patch if I had been quicker, because using opt->repo would not have been obvious to me.
René