Re: [PATCH 1/2] Sanitize for_each_reflog_ent()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:

> On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Jakub Narebski wrote:
>
>> Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>> ... 
>> > My reasoning is that invalid entries should rather be ignored than be 
>> > taken into account. So, to verify that you are not walking invalid data, 
>> > you have to parse it anyway.
>> 
>> I think that Junio was talking about the fact, that if you for example
>> do need only refname and sha1, there is no need to parse object at all.
>> If you don't need to, don't parse.
>
> And it was exactly what _I_ was talking about, too:
>
> if there are invalid entries, you ignore them. So for example, if there is 
> no timestamp and message, you don't want the osha1 or nsha1, because it is 
> an _invalid_ record.

That's fine.  I applied your patch with minimum fixups so that
it does not make the surviving records _invalid_ ones after
"reflog expire" runs ;-).

-
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]