From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 21:55:50 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/4] cache-tree: Create/update cache-tree on checkout
Message-ID: <xmqqr41mthg9.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <53C5828F.2050005@web.de>

Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@web.de> writes:

> On 07/13/2014 10:28 PM, David Turner wrote:
>> From: David Turner <dturner@twopensource.com>
> []
>> diff --git a/cache-tree.c b/cache-tree.c
>> index 7fa524a..f951d7d 100644
>> --- a/cache-tree.c
>> +++ b/cache-tree.c
>> @@ -239,9 +239,12 @@ static int update_one(struct cache_tree *it,
>>   	struct strbuf buffer;
>>   	int missing_ok = flags & WRITE_TREE_MISSING_OK;
>>   	int dryrun = flags & WRITE_TREE_DRY_RUN;
>> +	int repair = flags & WRITE_TREE_REPAIR;
>>   	int to_invalidate = 0;
>>   	int i;
>>   +	assert(!(dryrun && repair));
> I think something in the spirit of
> die("dryrun and repaiir can not be used together"\n)
> Would be nicer to the user as well as being more reliable (as assert
> may be a no-op in some systems)

While it is a good suggestion *not* to attempt validating the
end-user input with assert() for the reason you state, I think for
this particular case, these flags only come from the code and assert()
to catch programming errors would be sufficient.

Besides, as discussed elsewhere, WRITE_TREE_DRY_RUN should not be
used, and the support for it should be dropped.  It is broken in
that the code path that leads to update_one() may correctly compute
tree object names and stuff them in the cache-tree, higher layer
code would then complain on such a cache-tree that records tree
objects that do not exist.