On 03/24, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> writes: > > > 03f15a7 read-cache: fix reading of split index moved the checks for the > > correct order of index entries out of do_read_index. This loosens the > > checks more than necessary. Re-introduce the checks for the order, but > > don't error out when we have multiple stage-0 entries in the index. > > Return a flag for the caller instead, if we have multiple stage-0 > > entries and let the caller decide if we need to error out. > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> > > --- > > > > This is a patch on top of my previous patch, as that one has already > > been merged to next. > > I am not convinced that this is a good change in the first place. > > The original before your fix was wrong exactly because it was too > tightly tied to the implementation of the index file format where > there was only one file whose contents must be sorted, and that is > why it was a broken check in a new world with split-index. And your > fix in 'next' is the right fix---it makes the verification happen > only on the result is given to the caller for its consumption. > > It may be true that entries may have to be sorted in a certain order > when reading the original index file format and also reading some > steps in reading the split-index, but that merely happens to be an > imprementation detail of the two format currently supported, and as > we improve these formats (or even introduce yet another one) in the > longer term, this patch would re-introduce the same issue your > earlier fix corrected, wouldn't it?
Yes, after looking at it again I completely agree. Sorry for the noise. -- 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
