Hello,
On 17.07.2018 21:55, Junio C Hamano wrote:
I wonder if the GENTLY option should apply to update_tree_entry()
the same way as it would to the other codepaths that currently die
to express "we were handed this string by the caller and told to
give back object ID the string represents, and we found no good
answer". In this one (and the "bad ref" one), the existing failures
in these two codepaths are not "we got a string and that does not
resolve to an object name", but "we didn't have the data to work on
to begin with (either a corrupt tree object or a corrupt ref").
In other words, it's not like "We were given HEAD:no-such-path and
there is no such path in that tree"; it is "We tried to read HEAD:
tree for no-such-path in it, but the tree was corrupt and we couldn't
even tell if such a path is or is not in it", no?
I can definitely say there is a clear difference between these
two cases, but I am not entirely sure how `GENTLY` should apply to
`update_tree_entry()`.
On one side, even before this patch, there was the gentle version
of this function, `update_tree_entry_gently()`, which could still die.
And it makes sense. It should be ok to call `die()` when there was
detected a "bigger" issue.
On the other side, in some cases like `read_ref_at()` I think that it
could be useful if the caller could handle any error (which is what
patches 3/6 and 4/6 try to accomplish).
I really do not know which way would be the best in this particular case.
Best,
Paul
