On Wednesday 06 November 2013 10:00:57 Junio C Hamano wrote: > Thanks; first some procedural issues: Thanks, I will take care of the mentioned points for future submissions.
> I think the real problem is that sha1_loose_object_info() is called > by sha1_object_info_extended(), when it does not find a cached or a > packed object, and the callee assumes that it is asked to fill in > only the requested pieces of information while the caller does not > even bother to check if such an object actually exists. > > How about doing it like the attached instead? Yes; this seems more like a proper fix. I would prefer it over my suggestion. It is illogical that sha1_loose_object_info sometimes returns an error if the object does not exist and sometimes not, depending on which properties are requested. Sven -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
