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
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