mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> +/*
> + * Emit a warning and return true iff ref1 and ref2 have the same name
> + * and the same sha1. Die if they have the same name but different
> + * sha1s.
> + */
> +static int is_dup_ref(const struct ref_entry *ref1, const struct ref_entry *ref2)
> +{
> + if (!strcmp(ref1->name, ref2->name)) {
> + /* Duplicate name; make sure that the SHA1s match: */
> + if (hashcmp(ref1->sha1, ref2->sha1))
> + die("Duplicated ref, and SHA1s don't match: %s",
> + ref1->name);
> + warning("Duplicated ref: %s", ref1->name);
> + return 1;
> + } else {
> + return 0;
> + }
> +}
At this step, is_dup_ref() is only called from sort_ref_array() which in
turn is only called on either a collection of loose or packed refs, so
warning is warranted. IOW I do not see anything wrong with _this_ patch.
Later in the series, however, the collection of extra refs seems to be
shoved into a phoney "direntry" and made to go through the same add_ref()
machinery that uses find_containing_direntry() which in turn calls
search_ref_dir() that smells like a definite no-no.
--
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