Re: ps/object-info-bits-cleanup

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Feb 11, 2026, 17:35 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqo6lvuqsg.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <aYyQx8Yvx1n4W5L5@pks.im>

Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:

Show 19 quoted lines

> On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 02:21:34PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> * ps/object-info-bits-cleanup (2026-01-26) 3 commits
>>  - odb: drop gaps in object info flag values
>>  - builtin/fsck: fix flags passed to `odb_has_object()`
>>  - builtin/backfill: fix flags passed to `odb_has_object()`
>> 
>>  A couple of bugs in use of flag bits around odb API has been
>>  corrected, and the flag bits reordered.
>> 
>>  Comments?
>>  source: <20260126-b4-pks-read-object-info-flags-v1-0-e682a003b17c@pks.im>
>
> The discussion on this series has wound down by now, but I'm not sure
> whether anything actionable came out of it. The biggest question was
> around whether or not to use an enum as parameter or an unsigned
> integer, but there wasn't really a clear conclusion.
>
> Should I reroll this series to convert it to an enum, or should I keep
> this as-is and then we can merge this series down?

I do not think we want to go the route that was proposed in <aXhbXQo6taM33m-1@pks.im>, but it's your call. As I said in <xmqqa4y0jop7.fsf@gitster.g>, it would make sense to change parameters that functions that deal with these constants to take enum instead of unsigned, if we were to turn "#define" into enum. It can be done on top as a clean-up if the theme of this topic were something more substantial, but this topic largely being a clean-up itself, I am not sure what the optics would be to have a clean-up topic that requires further clean-up ;-).