Michael Haggerty <mhag...@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> On 02/12/2015 06:32 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 3:12 AM, Michael Haggerty <mhag...@alum.mit.edu>
>> wrote:
>>> Instead, verify the reference's old value if and only if old_sha1 is
>>> non-NULL.
>>>
>>> ...
>>> @@ -3664,9 +3664,6 @@ int ref_transaction_update(struct ref_transaction
>>> *transaction,
>>> if (transaction->state != REF_TRANSACTION_OPEN)
>>> die("BUG: update called for transaction that is not open");
>>>
>>> - if (have_old && !old_sha1)
>>> - die("BUG: have_old is true but old_sha1 is NULL");
>>> -
>>
>> In the old world, old_sha1 here used to be one of
>> (1) NULL, (2) null_sha1[], or (3) a real object name.
>> What is the rule in the new world?
> ...
> ... If old_sha1 is NULL, then the previous
> value is not checked.
OK. That makes it perfectly clear that removing these lines is the
right thing to do.
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
