René Scharfe <l.s.r@xxxxxx> writes:
> Am 07.01.2019 um 09:31 schrieb Jeff King:
>> I also cleaned up my sha1/object_id patch and rebased it on top of what
>> you have here. Though as I worked on it, it expanded in scope a bit.
>> Possibly it should be a separate series entirely, but that would create
>> some annoying textual conflicts on merge.
>>
>> [01/11]: sha1-file: fix outdated sha1 comment references
>> [02/11]: update comment references to sha1_object_info()
>> [03/11]: http: use struct object_id instead of bare sha1
>> [04/11]: sha1-file: modernize loose object file functions
>> [05/11]: sha1-file: modernize loose header/stream functions
>> [06/11]: sha1-file: convert pass-through functions to object_id
>> [07/11]: convert has_sha1_file() callers to has_object_file()
>> [08/11]: sha1-file: drop has_sha1_file()
>> [09/11]: sha1-file: prefer "loose object file" to "sha1 file" in messages
>> [10/11]: sha1-file: avoid "sha1 file" for generic use in messages
>> [11/11]: prefer "hash mismatch" to "sha1 mismatch"
>
> I skimmed them; they look good to me. 6 and 8 are particularly
> satisfying; getting rid of hash copy operations just feels nice. :)
>
> Junio only took 1 to 5 into pu; 6, 7 and its sidekick 8, 10 and 11
> conflict with sb/more-repo-in-api; 9 could go in unmodified.
I think these later steps are based on something a lot newer than
the result of applying your updates to the jk/loose-object-cache
series they fix. I think I untangled and backported one of the
earlier commits but then I stopped after 05/11.
I do not think it is important to keep jk/loose-object-cache and
these two follow-up topics mergeable to the maintenance track, so
I'll see if the patches behave better if queued directly on top of
3b2f8a02 ("Merge branch 'jk/loose-object-cache'", 2019-01-04), or
even a yet newer random point on 'master'.
Thanks.
