public inbox for git@vger.kernel.org 
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>
To: Jeff King <peff@peff•net>
Cc: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum•mit.edu>, git@vger•kernel.org
Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Mar 2014, #02; Tue, 11)
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 12:49:48 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqa9cvkxib.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140312193509.GA1816@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Wed, 12 Mar 2014 15:35:09 -0400")

Jeff King <peff@peff•net> writes:

> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 03:12:11PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> * jk/warn-on-object-refname-ambiguity (2014-01-09) 6 commits
>>  - get_sha1: drop object/refname ambiguity flag
>>  - get_sha1: speed up ambiguous 40-hex test
>>  - FIXUP: teach DO_FOR_EACH_NO_RECURSE to prime_ref_dir()
>>  - refs: teach for_each_ref a flag to avoid recursion
>>  - cat-file: fix a minor memory leak in batch_objects
>>  - cat-file: refactor error handling of batch_objects
>> 
>>  Expecting a reroll.
>
> I finally got a chance to return to this one. Michael had some good
> comments on the refactoring that was going on in the middle patches. He
> ended with:
>
>   Yes.  Still, the code is really piling up for this one warning for the
>   contrived eventuality that somebody wants to pass SHA-1s and branch
>   names together in a single cat-file invocation *and* wants to pass
>   lots of inputs at once and so is worried about performance *and* has
>   reference names that look like SHA-1s.  Otherwise we could just leave
>   the warning disabled in this case, as now.  Or we could add a new
>   "--hashes-only" option that tells cat-file to treat all of its
>   arguments/inputs as SHA-1s; such an option would permit an even faster
>   code path for bulk callers.
>
> Having looked at it again, I really think it is not worth pursuing. The
> end goal is not that interesting, there is a lot of code introduced, and
> a reasonable chance of accidentally introducing regressions and/or
> making the code less maintainable.  Keeping the existing code (which
> just disables the check for cat-file) is probably the sanest course of
> action. We can do a similar thing for "rev-list --stdin" if we want, or
> we can wait until somebody complains.
>
> The bottom two patches are reasonable cleanups we should keep, though
> (and the rest can just be discarded).

Fine, let's do that.

Thanks.

next prev parent reply	other threads:[~2014-03-12 19:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-03-11 22:12 What's cooking in git.git (Mar 2014, #02; Tue, 11) Junio C Hamano
2014-03-11 23:22 ` Duy Nguyen
2014-03-12 18:31   ` Junio C Hamano
2014-03-12 19:35 ` Jeff King
2014-03-12 19:49   ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2014-03-12 20:03   ` Jeff King
2014-03-12 20:05     ` [PATCH 1/2] cat-file: restore warn_on_object_refname_ambiguity flag Jeff King
2014-03-12 20:06     ` [PATCH 2/2] rev-list: disable object/refname ambiguity check with --stdin Jeff King

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=xmqqa9cvkxib.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com \
    --to=gitster@pobox$(echo .)com \
    --cc=git@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
    --cc=mhagger@alum$(echo .)mit.edu \
    --cc=peff@peff$(echo .)net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox