Jeff King <[email protected]> writes:
> I'd expect most of the GIT_MAX constants to eventually go away in favor
> of "struct object_id", but that will still be using the same "big enough
> to hold any hash" size under the hood.
Indeed. It is good to see major contributors are in agreement ;-)
I'd expect that an array of "struct object_id" would be how a fixed
number of object names would be represented, i.e.
struct object_id thing[num_elements];
instead of an array of uchar that is MAX bytes long, i.e.
unsigned char name[GIT_MAX_RAWSZ][num_elements];
In fact, the former is already how we represent the list of fake
parents in the commit_graft structure, so I think patch 5/5 in this
series does two unrelated things, one of which is bad (i.e. use of
parse_oid_hex() is good; turning the FLEX_ARRAY at the end into a
oid_array that requires a separate allocation of the array is bad).
> Agreed. Most code should be dealing with the abstract concept of a hash
> and shouldn't have to care about the size. I really like parse_oid_hex()
> for that reason (and I think parsing is the main place we've found that
> needs to care).
Yes.
