Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu <ungureanupaulsebastian@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> @@ -1769,7 +1831,8 @@ void maybe_die_on_misspelt_object_name(const char *name, const char *prefix)
>
> int get_oid_with_context(const char *str, unsigned flags, struct object_id *oid, struct object_context *oc)
> {
> - if (flags & GET_OID_FOLLOW_SYMLINKS && flags & GET_OID_ONLY_TO_DIE)
> + if (flags & (GET_OID_FOLLOW_SYMLINKS | GET_OID_GENTLY) &&
> + flags & GET_OID_ONLY_TO_DIE)
> BUG("incompatible flags for get_sha1_with_context");
> return get_oid_with_context_1(str, flags, NULL, oid, oc);
> }
This points us back to "only-to-die" which was "gently" before
2e83b66c ("fix overslow :/no-such-string-ever-existed diagnostics",
2011-05-10). I think we have to keep them both, as only-to-die
means more than just being not gentle, and we cannot revert the
renaming s/!gently/only-to-die/ done by 2e83b66c and teach GENTLY to
more codepaths, I think. But I might be mistaken and we may be able
to get rid of only-to-die at the end of this series. I dunno.
In any case, what's the reason why this new "gentle" option is
incompatible with "only-to-die"?
