Heiko Voigt wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 07:28:52PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Heiko Voigt wrote:
>>> +static unsigned int hash_sha1_string(const unsigned char *sha1, const char *string)
>>> +{
>>> + return memhash(sha1, 20) + strhash(string);
>>> +}
>>
>> Feels a bit unconventional. I can't find a strong reason to mind.
>
> Well I did not think much about this. I simply thought: hash -> kind of
> random value. Adding the two together is as good as anything (even
> overflow does not matter).
[...]
> I am fine with a switch to something different. We could use classic XOR
> in case that feels better.
Either + or ^ is fine with me (yeah, '^' is what I expected so '+'
forced me to think for a few seconds). I don't think we have to worry
much about hostile people making repos that force git to spend a long
time dealing with hash collisions, so anything more complicated is
probably overkill. :)
[...]
>> [...]
>>> +static void warn_multiple_config(struct submodule_config *config, const char *option)
>>> +{
>>> + warning("%s:.gitmodules, multiple configurations found for submodule.%s.%s. "
>>> + "Skipping second one!", sha1_to_hex(config->gitmodule_sha1),
>>> + option, config->name.buf);
>>
>> Ah, so gitmodule_sha1 is a commit id?
>
> No, this output is a bug. gitmodule_sha1 is actually the sha1 of the
> .gitmodule blob we read. Thanks for noticing will fix. Should I also add
> a comment to the gitmodule_sha1 field to explain what it is?
[...]
> with
> the clarification does the name make sense now?
Yep. Suggested fixes:
- call it gitmodules_sha1 instead of gitmodule_sha1 (it's the blob
name for .gitmodules, not the name of a module)
- add a comment where the field is declared (this would make it clear
that it's a blob name instead of e.g. just the SHA-1 of the text)
Thanks for your thoughtfulness.
Jonathan
--
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