Re: What's cooking in git.git (Mar 2014, #02; Tue, 11)

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

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.