Jeff King <> writes:

> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 10:40:44PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> > BTW, the code does git-blame to Vicent's 2834bc2 (which I also worked
>> > on), but actually originated in 7a979d9 (Thin pack - create packfile
>> > with missing delta base., 2006-02-19). Not that it matters, but I was
>> > just surprised since the code you are changing did not seem familiar to
>> > me. I guess there was just too much refactoring during the code movement
>> > for git-blame to pass along the blame in this case.
>> Without -M, "too much refactoring" for git-blame may just be moving a
>> function to a different place in the same file.
> I tried "git blame -M -C -C -C pack-objects.c" but couldn't get anything
> but the whole thing blamed to 2834bc2.

Are you two being a bit too unreasonable, or trying to be fanciful
and funny and I am not getting the humor?

Here is the relevant part of what 2834bc27 (pack-objects: refactor
the packing list, 2013-10-24) removes from builtin/pack-objects.c:

-       object_ix = xrealloc(object_ix, sizeof(int) * object_ix_hashsz);
-       memset(object_ix, 0, sizeof(int) * object_ix_hashsz);

And here is how the same rehash is done in pack-objects.c at the
toplevel in the new code:

+       pdata->index = xrealloc(pdata->index, sizeof(uint32_t) * 
+       memset(pdata->index, 0, sizeof(int) * pdata->index_size);

Surely, the code structure may be similar, but the similarity ends
there.  These lines are not equivalent even under the "-w" option.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to