Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: >> This code comes originally form 454fbbcde3 (git-rev-list: allow missing >> objects when the parent is marked UNINTERESTING, 2005-07-10). But later, >> in aeeae1b771 (revision traversal: allow UNINTERESTING objects to be >> missing, 2009-01-27), we marked dealt with calling parse_object() on the >> parents more directly. >> >> So what I wonder is whether this code is simply redundant and can go >> away entirely. That would save the has_object_file() call in all cases. Hmm, interesting. I forgot all what I did around this area, but you are right. > There's a similar case for trees. ... > though technically the existing code allows _missing_ trees, but > not on corrupt ones. True, but the intention of these "do not care too much about missing stuff while marking uninteresting" effort is aligned better with ignoring corrupt ones, too, I would think, as "missing" in that sentence is in fact about "not availble", and stuff that exists in corrupt form is still not available anyway. So I do not think it makes a bad change to start allowing corrupt ones. > I guess this is perhaps less interesting, because we only mark trees > directly fed from the pending array, not every tree of commits that we > traverse. Though if you had a really gigantic tree, it might be > measurable. I tend to agree that this is less interesting case than commits. A huge tree with millions of entries in a single level would spend quite a lot of cycle in slurping the tree data to in-core buffer, but we do not actually parse these million entries upon opening the tree, so it may not be too bad.
