Torsten Bögershausen <tbo...@web.de> writes:
> On 07/13/2014 10:28 PM, David Turner wrote:
>> From: David Turner <dtur...@twopensource.com>
> []
>> diff --git a/cache-tree.c b/cache-tree.c
>> index 7fa524a..f951d7d 100644
>> --- a/cache-tree.c
>> +++ b/cache-tree.c
>> @@ -239,9 +239,12 @@ static int update_one(struct cache_tree *it,
>> struct strbuf buffer;
>> int missing_ok = flags & WRITE_TREE_MISSING_OK;
>> int dryrun = flags & WRITE_TREE_DRY_RUN;
>> + int repair = flags & WRITE_TREE_REPAIR;
>> int to_invalidate = 0;
>> int i;
>> + assert(!(dryrun && repair));
> I think something in the spirit of
> die("dryrun and repaiir can not be used together"\n)
> Would be nicer to the user as well as being more reliable (as assert
> may be a no-op in some systems)
While it is a good suggestion *not* to attempt validating the
end-user input with assert() for the reason you state, I think for
this particular case, these flags only come from the code and assert()
to catch programming errors would be sufficient.
Besides, as discussed elsewhere, WRITE_TREE_DRY_RUN should not be
used, and the support for it should be dropped. It is broken in
that the code path that leads to update_one() may correctly compute
tree object names and stuff them in the cache-tree, higher layer
code would then complain on such a cache-tree that records tree
objects that do not exist.
--
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
