On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 06:36:12PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Most callers generally treat get_sha1 as a black box, giving > > it a string from the user and expecting to get a sha1 in > > return. The get_sha1_with_context function gives callers > > more information about what happened while resolving the > > object name so they can make better decisions about how to > > use the result. We currently use this only to provide > > information about the path entry used to find a blob. > > > > We don't currently provide any information about the > > resolution rules that were used to reach the final object. > > Some callers may want these in order to enforce a policy > > that a particular subset of the lookup rules are used (e.g., > > when serving remote requests). > > > > This patch adds a set of bit-fields that document the use of > > particular features during an object lookup. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> > > --- > > The diffstat looks a little scary, but it is mostly just the internal > > get_sha1 functions learning to pass the object_context around. > > Hmm, shouldn't this also cover peel_to_type()? That would have made it > also apply to the maintenance track. I don't see how peel_to_type is relevant. As far as get_sha1 is concerned, the interesting thing is actually calling peel_onion. It does get the context passed to it in my patch, but I didn't bother marking that the peel feature was used (because it wasn't relevant to the policy I wanted to implement in the follow-on patch). But we could pretty easily mark the use of the peel feature, too. I'm not sure what you mean about the maintenance track, though. AFAICT, we don't separately call peel_to_type, but just potentially use it as part of get_sha1_with_context. Am I missing something? -Peff -- 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