On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 06:03:07PM -0700, Jonathan Tan wrote: > > I had the same thoughts (both on the name and the "vocabularies"). IMHO > > we should consider allocating the bits from the same set. There's only > > one HAS_SHA1 flag, and it has an exact match in OBJECT_INFO_QUICK. > > Agreed - in this patch set, I have also consolidated the relevant flags, > including LOOKUP_REPLACE_OBJECT and LOOKUP_UNKNOWN_OBJECT. > > In addition, Junio has mentioned the potential confusion in behavior > between a NULL and an empty struct passed to > sha1_object_info_extended(). In this patch set, I require non-NULL, and > have added an optimization that avoids accessing the pack in certain > situations, but this optimization requires checking a lot of fields. Let > me know what you think. Yes, like that direction (and the direction of the whole series) much better. Thanks for working on it. I'm trying to clear my "to be reviewed" backlog before going offline for a week, so I gave it a fairly cursory review. I had only a few minor comments, but I agree with the points that Junio already raised. -Peff
