Re: [PATCH 1/2] fsck_handle_reflog_sha1(): new function
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Jun 8, 2015, 15:07 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqwpzeck72.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <1c6f5540fe974016c1547163c7b891707019154d.1433769878.git.mhagger@alum.mit.edu>
Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> New function, extracted from fsck_handle_reflog_ent(). The extra > is_null_sha1() test for the new reference is currently unnecessary, as > reflogs are deleted when the reference itself is deleted. But it > doesn't hurt, either.
I think we would crash with today's code in such a situation, but wouldn't we want to diagnose a 0{40} object name on the "new" side of the reflog entry as an error in the endgame state?
I do share uneasiness with Dscho that this is tightening what used to be an OK state into an error, but I haven't thought about how serious it would be.
Thanks.