Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > And the issue is the same for all the other explicit comparison with > OBJ_BAD. If we do it the other way around, i.e. leave these callers > as they are and add new negative return values to the function first, > and then convert "if negative, say error" to "if OBJ_BAD, say so, > else if we have this new type of error, say so", then the risk of > mistake becomes smaller. > > But hopefully any such potential issue will be resolved by the end > of this short series, so as long as it won't be left as technical > debt, I am OK. And after reading through the topic to the end, it turns out that the code did not add new error return value. So while it probably is a good idea to make oid_object_info() to return the enum, I am not convinced that the updates to the caller that used to check for the negativeness is an improvement. Rewriting the ones that used to compare with -1 for equality to instead compare with OBJ_BAD would be very much welcome, though.
