Re: [RFC PATCH] unpack-trees.c: handle empty deleted ita files

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Aug 19, 2019, 19:54 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq5zmtx75x.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK_rgsHKaLkO_wputOKcHBTDTnyvOUNTABUKK3fKc3ddiaNzQQ@mail.gmail.com>

Varun Naik <vcnaik94@gmail.com> writes:

Show 12 quoted lines

>> Either is fine as the implementation of the same semantics; I
>> however am not sure if two I-T-A entries should compare "same" or
>> "not same", or if we are better off catching the caller that feeds
>> two I-T-A entries to same() with a BUG().
>
> I'd argue that two ita cache entries should be a BUG. Since we believe
> that a cache entry in the tree can never have the intent-to-add bit set,
> it suffices to show that no call to same() ever passes two cache entries
> from the index.
> ...
> The same argument probably extends to the conflicted bit, but changing
> that is probably out of scope of this patch.

Yup. I think the patch as-posted is fine. I also agree that tightening the validity check of parameters to same() is better done as a separate topic.