Torsten Bögershausen <> writes:

> On 07/13/2014 10:28 PM, David Turner wrote:
>> From: David Turner <>
> []
>> 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
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to