On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 11:10:22PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> >> +
> >> + if (!(flag & REF_ISBROKEN) && is_null_sha1(sha1)) {
> >
> > Why do we do the extra check for !(flag & REF_ISBROKEN) here?
>
> That was an attempt to avoid calling is_null_sha1() unnecessarily. I
> think I can make this go away and make the code clearer in general by
> restructuring the logic a little bit. I will do that in the next round.
If you get rid of the useless hashclr(), then this just becomes:
if (!(flag & REF_ISBROKEN) && is_null_sha1(sha1))
flag |= REF_ISBROKEN;
The reason for the initial check seems pretty obvious then (but it would
also be OK without it; is_null_sha1 is not that expensive).
-Peff
--
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
