Оля Тележная <olyatelezhn...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> - else if (deref)
>>> + } else if (!strcmp(name, "objectsize:disk")) {
>>> + if (cat_file_info.is_cat_file) {
>>> + v->value = cat_file_info.disk_size;
>>> + v->s = xstrfmt("%"PRIuMAX,
>>> (uintmax_t)v->value);
>>> + }
>>> + } else if (deref)
>>
>> Why do we care about is_cat_file here. Shouldn't:
>>
>> git for-each-ref --format='%(objectsize:disk)'
>>
>> work? I.e., shouldn't the cat_file_info.disk_size variable be held
>> somewhere in a used_atom struct?
>
> At that point - no.
> I think it sounds like other separate task to add this functionality
> and to test it properly.
What does "that point" refer to? This point at 20th patch in the
23-patch series it is not premature, but it will become feasible in
later steps?
As Peff already said in his review on earlier steps like 4/23 and
7/23, I too found the series quite confusing and felt as if I was
watching somebody stumbling in all directions in the dark in the
earlier steps in the series before deciding to go in one direction.
