On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 10:33:13PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
> >> Or teach git-blame to have its own pretend mechanism, and remove the
> >> pretend mechanism from sha1-file.c.
> >
> > I think that would be ideal, but I'm not sure if it's feasible due to
> > the layering
Jeff King writes:
>> Or teach git-blame to have its own pretend mechanism, and remove the
>> pretend mechanism from sha1-file.c.
>
> I think that would be ideal, but I'm not sure if it's feasible due to
> the layering of the various modules.
Sorry, but I do not get why we want command-line speci
Jeff King writes:
> This fixes a regression in 7c0fe330d5 (rev-list: handle missing tree
> objects properly, 2018-10-05) where rev-list will now complain about the
> empty tree when it doesn't physically exist on disk.
>
> Before that commit, we relied on the traversal code in list-objects.c to
>
On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 11:19:32AM -0800, Jonathan Tan wrote:
> > - some callers of has_sha1_file() might care about durability between
> > processes. Because it's baked in, the empty tree is safe for that
> > (whatever follow-on process runs, it will also be baked in there).
> > But
> This patch makes the minimal fix, which is to swap out a direct call to
> oid_object_info_extended(), minus the SKIP_CACHED flag, instead of
> calling has_object_file(). This is all that has_object_file() is doing
> under the hood. And there's little danger of unrelated fallout from
> other unexp
This fixes a regression in 7c0fe330d5 (rev-list: handle missing tree
objects properly, 2018-10-05) where rev-list will now complain about the
empty tree when it doesn't physically exist on disk.
Before that commit, we relied on the traversal code in list-objects.c to
walk through the trees. Since
6 matches
Mail list logo
