Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fsck_handle_reflog_sha1(): new function

From: Michael Haggerty <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 17:17:11 +0200

On 06/08/2015 05:07 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Michael Haggerty <[email-masked]> 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?

Good point. new_sha1 == NULL_SHA1 should be diagnosed and reported with
a distinct error message.

> [...]

Michael

-- 
Michael Haggerty
[email-masked]