From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>
To: "Torsten Bögershausen" <tboegi@web•de>
Cc: David Turner <dturner@twopensource•com>,
git@vger•kernel.org, David Turner <dturner@twitter•com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/4] cache-tree: Create/update cache-tree on checkout
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 14:55:50 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqr41mthg9.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53C5828F.2050005@web.de> ("Torsten Bögershausen"'s message of "Tue, 15 Jul 2014 21:35:43 +0200")
Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@web•de> writes:
> On 07/13/2014 10:28 PM, David Turner wrote:
>> From: David Turner <dturner@twopensource•com>
> []
>> diff --git a/cache-tree.c b/cache-tree.c
>> index 7fa524a..f951d7d 100644
>> --- a/cache-tree.c
>> +++ b/cache-tree.c
>> @@ -239,9 +239,12 @@ static int update_one(struct cache_tree *it,
>> struct strbuf buffer;
>> int missing_ok = flags & WRITE_TREE_MISSING_OK;
>> int dryrun = flags & WRITE_TREE_DRY_RUN;
>> + int repair = flags & WRITE_TREE_REPAIR;
>> int to_invalidate = 0;
>> int i;
>> + assert(!(dryrun && repair));
> I think something in the spirit of
> die("dryrun and repaiir can not be used together"\n)
> Would be nicer to the user as well as being more reliable (as assert
> may be a no-op in some systems)
While it is a good suggestion *not* to attempt validating the
end-user input with assert() for the reason you state, I think for
this particular case, these flags only come from the code and assert()
to catch programming errors would be sufficient.
Besides, as discussed elsewhere, WRITE_TREE_DRY_RUN should not be
used, and the support for it should be dropped. It is broken in
that the code path that leads to update_one() may correctly compute
tree object names and stuff them in the cache-tree, higher layer
code would then complain on such a cache-tree that records tree
objects that do not exist.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-07-15 21:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-07-13 20:28 [PATCH v9 1/4] cache-tree: Create/update cache-tree on checkout David Turner
2014-07-13 20:28 ` [PATCH v9 2/4] test-dump-cache-tree: invalid trees are not errors David Turner
2014-07-13 20:28 ` [PATCH v9 3/4] cache-tree: subdirectory tests David Turner
2014-07-13 20:28 ` [PATCH v9 4/4] cache-tree: Write updated cache-tree after commit David Turner
2014-07-15 19:35 ` [PATCH v9 1/4] cache-tree: Create/update cache-tree on checkout Torsten Bögershausen
2014-07-15 21:55 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
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=xmqqr41mthg9.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com \
--to=gitster@pobox$(echo .)com \
--cc=dturner@twitter$(echo .)com \
--cc=dturner@twopensource$(echo .)com \
--cc=git@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=tboegi@web$(echo .)de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox