Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > I think that repeating the oid is intentional; the point is to dump how > the traversal code is hitting the endpoints, even if we do so multiple > times. > > The --oneline behavior just looks like a bug. I think --format is broken > with --show-all, too (it does not show anything!). I do not know about the --format thing, but the part about --oneline being a bug is correct. I've known about the oneline that does not show anything other than the oid (not even end-of-line) for unparsed commits for a long time---I just didn't bother looking into fixing it exactly because this is only a debugging aid ;-) > Though I think it would be equally correct to have set_commit_buffer() > just throw away the existing cache entry and replace it with this one. I > don't think there's a real reason to prefer the old to the new. And that > might be worth doing if it would let us drop get_cached_commit_buffer() > as a public function. But... > ... > In my opinion it's not really worth trying to make it private. The > confusion you're fixing in the first two calls is not due to a bad API, > but due to some subtly confusing logic in that code's use of the API. ;) Yup. > So I'd probably do this: > ... Makes sense to me.
