Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] object_id part 4
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Jun 20, 2016, 15:53 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqq8txzvour.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20160620100522.GB14058@sigill.intra.peff.net>
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> I am on the fence regarding oidcpy/oidclr. I agree they _could_ be > struct assignments, but it is also convenient to have concept wrapped up > in a function, in case we ever want to do anything more complicated.
Also dedicated functions have documenation value. There are some things that currently use the same 40-hex that is the result of running SHA-1 but are not object names (e.g. patch id, and rerere id). They use the same hashcpy()/hashcmp() helpers as object names do, but the code that use them probably do not want to be converted to struct oid and oidcpy().