Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] sha1_loose_object_info: do not complain out loud on non-existent objects

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 9:09 PM, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> makes sense to me, but I might have overlooked something
> while it's still making sense for me, i think it's more logical  to
> move the check to the caller, where "entry in pack?" check is also
> done.

I think most of the callers of sha1_object_info_extended() are using this
function, saying "We expect this object to exist somewhere, perhaps in
pack or perhaps in a loose form, and trying to see what it is", and they
rely on the first error message "unable to find" to be issued.

So in that sense, I do not see how this patch makes any sense at all.
Care to point out a codepath where we throw a random 20 bytes at it in
order to see if an object with the given object name exists?  That would
be the only case where "unable to find" might be an unwanted error
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at

[Newbies FAQ]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Free Online Dating]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Free Online Dating]     [Photo]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]     [Linux Resources]

Add to Google