Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Fix a regression in 89e4202f982 ([PATCH] Parse tags for absent
> objects, 2005-06-21) (yes, that ancient!) and correctly report an
> error on a tag like:
>
> object <a tree hash>
> type commit
>
> As:
>
> error: object <a tree hash> is tree, not a commit
>
> Instead of our long-standing misbehavior of inverting the two, and
> reporting:
>
> error: object <a tree hash> is commit, not a tree
>
> Which, as can be trivially seen with 'git cat-file -t <a tree hash>'
> is incorrect.
Hmph, I've always thought it is just "supposed to be a" missing in
the sentence ;-)
> Hence the non-intuitive solution of adding a
> lookup_{blob,commit,tag,tree}_type() function. It's to distinguish
> calls from parse_object_buffer() where we actually know the type, from
> a parse_tag_buffer() where we're just guessing about the type.
I think it makes sense to allow the caller to express distinction
between "I know that this object is a blob, because I just read its
object header" and "Another object tells me that this object must be
a blob, because it is in a tree entry whose mode bits are 100644".
I wish we found a set of names better than lookup_<type>_type() for
that, though. It's just between
lookup_tag_type(r, oid, OBJ_NONE);
lookup_tag_type(r, oid, OBJ_TAG);
I cannot quite tell which one is which. I also wonder if the last
arg should just be a boolean ("I know it is a tag" vs "I heard it
must be a tag").
