On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 10:47:55AM +0100, Michael J Gruber wrote:

> > I'd be OK if we had an exterior object_context that could be handled
> > in the same way. But how do we tell setup_revisions that we are
> > interested in seeing the object_context from each parsed item, where
> > does the allocation come from (is it malloc'd by setup_revisions?), and
> > who is responsible for freeing it when we pop pending objects in
> > get_revisions and similar?
> Do we really need all of tree, path and mode in object_context (I mean
> not just here, but other users), or only the path? I'd try and resurrect
> the virtual path name objects then, they would be just like "item"
> storage-wise.

We need at least mode, since that is how the mode parameter of
object_array_entry gets set. I do not know off-hand who uses "tree". I
suspect the intent was to do .gitattributes lookups inside that tree,
but I do not think we actually do in-tree lookups currently.

> > I don't think it's as clear cut.
> > 
> > I wonder, though...what we really care about here is just the pathname.
> > But if it is a pending object that comes from a blob revision argument,
> > won't it always be of the form "treeish:path"? Could we not even resolve
> > the sha1 again, but instead just parse out the ":path" bit?
> Do we have that, and in what form (e.g. magic expanded etc.)?

Ah, I should have mentioned that. :) We should have the original rev
name in the object_array_entry's name field, shouldn't we? It's just a
matter of re-parsing it.

> Another thing I noted is that our path mangling at least for grep has
> some issues:
> (cd t && git grep GET_SHA1_QUIETLY HEAD:../cache.h)
> ../HEAD:../cache.h:#define GET_SHA1_QUIETLY        01


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

Reply via email to