On 06/14, Stefan Beller wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 2:39 PM Brandon Williams <bmw...@google.com> wrote:
>
> > +static void receive_wanted_refs(struct packet_reader *reader, struct ref
> > *refs)
> > +{
> ...
> > +
> > + for (r = refs; r; r = r->next) {
> > + if (!strcmp(end, r->name)) {
> > + oidcpy(&r->old_oid, &oid);
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + }
>
> The server is documented as MUST NOT send additional refs,
> which is fine here, as we'd have no way of storing them anyway.
> Do we want to issue a warning, though?
>
> if (!r) /* never break'd */
> warning ("server send unexpected line '%s'", reader.line);
Depends, does this warning help out the end user or do you think it
would confuse users to see this and still have their fetch succeed?
>
>
>
> > diff --git a/remote.c b/remote.c
> > index abe80c139..c9d452ac0 100644
> > --- a/remote.c
> > +++ b/remote.c
> > @@ -1735,6 +1735,7 @@ int get_fetch_map(const struct ref *remote_refs,
> > if (refspec->exact_sha1) {
> > ref_map = alloc_ref(name);
> > get_oid_hex(name, &ref_map->old_oid);
> > + ref_map->exact_sha1 = 1;
> > } else {
> > ref_map = get_remote_ref(remote_refs, name);
> > }
> > diff --git a/remote.h b/remote.h
> > index 45ecc6cef..e5338e368 100644
> > --- a/remote.h
> > +++ b/remote.h
> > @@ -73,6 +73,7 @@ struct ref {
> > force:1,
> > forced_update:1,
> > expect_old_sha1:1,
> > + exact_sha1:1,
>
> Can we rename that to exact_oid ?
I'll fix this.
--
Brandon Williams
