Jeff King <p...@peff.net> 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) * pdata->index_size); + 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 majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
