Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jakub Narebski wrote:
>> + if (! $4) { # unpeeled, direct reference
>> + push @refs, { hash => $1, name => $3 }; # without type
>> + } elsif ($3 eq $refs[-1]{'name'}) {
>> + # most likely a tag is followed by its peeled
>> + # (deref) one, and when that happens we know the
>> + # previous one was of type 'tag'.
>> + $refs[-1]{'type'} = "tag";
>> + }
>>...
>> - return \@reflist;
>> + return (\@reflist, \%refs);
>
> You are maintaining reflist (an array of hashrefs each element
> of which describes name, type, hash and other parse_ref()
> information for the ref) and refs (a hash that maps from name to
> hash) separatly. I wonder if this really has the performance
> advantage over just compute and return reflist from here and
> have the callers who need the mapping to derive it from the list
> (i.e.
>
> my ($reflist) = git_get_refs_list();
> my %refs = map { $_->{name} => $_->{hash} } @$reflist;
> ).
The %refs hash contain also map from peeled (dereferenced) object
to ref name. The information about derefs is not present in @reflist.
So the answer is that you can't derive %refs from @reflist.
--
Jakub Narebski
ShadeHawk on #git
Poland
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html