On 10/10/2017 9:30 AM, Jeff King wrote:
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 09:11:15AM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote:
On 10/10/2017 8:56 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:
OK, I think that makes more sense. But note the p->num_objects thing I
mentioned. If I do:
git pack-objects .git/objects/pack/pack </dev/null
then I have a pack with zero objects, which I think we'd similarly want
to return early from. I.e., I think we need:
if (p->num_objects)
return;
Technically that also covers open_pack_index() failure, too, but that's
a subtlety I don't think we should rely on.
True. I notice that the early part of the two functions look almost
identical. Do we need error condition handling for the other one,
too?
I prefer to fix the problem in all code clones when they cause review
friction, so I'll send a fifth commit showing just the diff for these
packfile issues in sha1_name.c. See patch below.
Ah, that answers my earlier question. Junio mean unique_in_pack(). And
yeah, I think it suffers from the same problem.
Should open_pack_index() return a non-zero status if the packfile is empty?
Or, is there a meaningful reason to have empty packfiles?
I can't think of a compelling reason to have an empty packfile. But nor
do I think we should consider them an error when we can handle them
quietly (and returning non-zero status would cause Git to complain on
many operations in a repository that has such a file).
-Peff
Thanks for the comments. I found some typos in my commit messages, too.
I plan to send a (hopefully) final version tomorrow (Thursday). It will
include:
* Make 'pos' unsigned in get_hex_char_from_oid()
* Check response from open_pack_index()
* Small typos in commit messages
If there are other issues, then please let me know.
Thanks,
-Stolee
