On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 11:16:00AM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote: > This reroll make some logically small changes to v1 [1] that are > textually very big: > > * Invert the sense of `is_packed_transaction_noop()` and rename it to > `is_packed_transaction_needed()`. This makes the logic easier to > follow and document. > > * Add a big comment to that function, describing the cases when it > returns false positives and explaining why that isn't a problem. > > * In the commit message for patch 02, gives a lot more information > about the regression that it is fixing. Thanks to Eric for the > suggestion. > > These patches are also available as branch > `avoid-rewriting-packed-refs` on my GitHub fork [2]. They now use > `mh/packed-ref-transactions` as the base, since that is where Junio > chose to apply v1. This all makes sense to me. I agree that the "is_needed" logic-flip in v2 makes it a little easier to think about. Like Junio, I was thrown off at first by the HAVE_OLD check. Especially since we would not ever set that flag for the transaction we care about here. But I think the crux of it is that the packed_ref store code could in theory operate independently of the loose ref code, where we feed it more exotic inputs. And what you've written here is future-proofing against the more general case, even though it would not be strictly necessary. -Peff
