Michael Haggerty <mhag...@alum.mit.edu> writes: > The files backend uses `ref_update::flags` for several internal flags. > But those flags have no meaning to the packed backend. So when adding > updates for the packed-refs transaction, only use flags that make > sense to the packed backend. > > `REF_NODEREF` is part of the public interface, and it's logically what > we want, so include it. In fact it is actually ignored by the packed > backend (which doesn't support symbolic references), but that's its > own business. > > Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhag...@alum.mit.edu> > --- > refs/files-backend.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/refs/files-backend.c b/refs/files-backend.c > index 2bd54e11ae..fadf1036d3 100644 > --- a/refs/files-backend.c > +++ b/refs/files-backend.c > @@ -2594,8 +2594,8 @@ static int files_transaction_prepare(struct ref_store > *ref_store, > > ref_transaction_add_update( > packed_transaction, update->refname, > - update->flags & ~REF_HAVE_OLD, > - &update->new_oid, &update->old_oid, > + REF_HAVE_NEW | REF_NODEREF, > + &update->new_oid, NULL,
Hmph, so we earlier passed all flags except HAVE_OLD down, which meant that update->flags that this transaction for packed backend does not have to see are given to it nevertheless. The new way the parameter is prepared does nto depend on update->flags at all, so that is about "don't leak flags". That much I can understand. But it is not explained why (1) we do not pass old_oid anymore and (2) we do give HAVE_NEW. Presumably the justification for (1) is something like "because we are not passing HAVE_OLD, we shouldn't have been passing old_oid at all---it was a harmless bug because lack of HAVE_OLD made the callee ignore old_oid" and (2) is "we need to pass HAVE_NEW, and we have been always passing HAVE_NEW because update->flags at this point is guaranteed to have it" or something like that? > NULL); > } > }
