On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 10:47:55AM +0100, Michael J Gruber wrote: > > I'd be OK if we had an exterior object_context that could be handled > > in the same way. But how do we tell setup_revisions that we are > > interested in seeing the object_context from each parsed item, where > > does the allocation come from (is it malloc'd by setup_revisions?), and > > who is responsible for freeing it when we pop pending objects in > > get_revisions and similar? > > Do we really need all of tree, path and mode in object_context (I mean > not just here, but other users), or only the path? I'd try and resurrect > the virtual path name objects then, they would be just like "item" > storage-wise. We need at least mode, since that is how the mode parameter of object_array_entry gets set. I do not know off-hand who uses "tree". I suspect the intent was to do .gitattributes lookups inside that tree, but I do not think we actually do in-tree lookups currently. > > I don't think it's as clear cut. > > > > I wonder, though...what we really care about here is just the pathname. > > But if it is a pending object that comes from a blob revision argument, > > won't it always be of the form "treeish:path"? Could we not even resolve > > the sha1 again, but instead just parse out the ":path" bit? > > Do we have that, and in what form (e.g. magic expanded etc.)? Ah, I should have mentioned that. :) We should have the original rev name in the object_array_entry's name field, shouldn't we? It's just a matter of re-parsing it. > Another thing I noted is that our path mangling at least for grep has > some issues: > > (cd t && git grep GET_SHA1_QUIETLY HEAD:../cache.h) > ../HEAD:../cache.h:#define GET_SHA1_QUIETLY 01 Yuck. -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