Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > object = get_reference(revs, arg, &oid, flags ^ local_flags); > if (!object) > - return revs->ignore_missing ? 0 : -1; > + /* > + * Either this object is missing and ignore_missing is true, or > + * this object is a (missing) promisor object and > + * exclude_promisor_objects is true. I had to guess and dig where these assertions are coming from; we should not force future readers of the code to. At least this comment must say why these assertions hold. Say something like "get_reference() yields NULL on only such and such cases" before concluding with "and in any of these cases, we can safely ignore it because ...". I think the two cases the comment covers are safe for this caller to silently return 0. Another case get_reference() yields NULL is when oid_object_info() says it is a commit but it turns out that the object is found by repo_parse_commit() to be a non-commit, isn't it? I am not sure if it is safe for this caller to just return 0. There may be some other "unusual-but-not-fatal" cases where get_reference() does not hit a die() but returns NULL. Thanks.
