From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 20:52:21 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] sha1_file, fsck: add missing blob support
Message-ID: <xmqq4lvh0y9m.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20170615133100.55561be6@twelve2.svl.corp.google.com>

Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> writes:

> There is indeed no reason why we need to keep multiple ones separate for
> an extended period of time - my thinking was to let fetch/clone be fast
> by not needing to scan through the entire existing manifest (in order to
> create the new one),  letting GC take care of consolidating them ...

Given that fetch/clone already incur network cost and the users
expect to wait for them to finish, I wouldn't have made such a
trade-off.

>> > +int has_missing_blob(const unsigned char *sha1, unsigned long *size)
>> > +{
>> 
>> This function that answers "is it expected to be missing?" is
>> confusingly named.  Is it missing, or does it exist?
>
> Renamed to in_missing_blob_manifest().

Either that, or "is_known_to_be_missing()", would be OK.

Thanks.