On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> while it's still making sense for me, i think it's more logical to >> move the check to the caller, where "entry in pack?" check is also >> done. > > I think most of the callers of sha1_object_info_extended() are using this > function, saying "We expect this object to exist somewhere, perhaps in > pack or perhaps in a loose form, and trying to see what it is", and they > rely on the first error message "unable to find" to be issued. hmm.. if you see it from that angle, yes it makes sense > So in that sense, I do not see how this patch makes any sense at all. > Care to point out a codepath where we throw a random 20 bytes at it in > order to see if an object with the given object name exists? That would > be the only case where "unable to find" might be an unwanted error > message. packed_delta_info(), fast-import (I think) and cat-file do not check for object existence before calling this. -- Duy -- 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