Earlier, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Note how this commit could have been done as an optimization before >>> 88473c8bae: When our peeling hits a non-tag, we won't parse that tagged >>> object only to immediately end the loop. >> >> Yep, thanks for mentioning this, as it's somewhat subtle. > > It is too subtle that I am not sure what the paragraph wants to say. Then: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > >> Puzzled. > > > > ...and the answer is that we don't need to parse it. The tag object > > mentions the type of what it points to, and we use lookup_commit(), etc, > > to create the object pointed to by its "tagged" field. > > Ahh, parse_object() on the outer tag, when instantiating the in-core > obj, allocated an in-core object and that instance is already given > a type from the tag object and .taggeed member points at that > object, so it is not an "unknown" object (tag.c::parse_tag_buffer()). > > Totally forgot about that one; thanks. Do you have any suggestions for how this could be explained better? I waffled on whether to add that paragraph to the commit message and when I finally did, it seems it got a little bit too succinct. I'm about to check out for today. Maybe in the morning I can think of some clarification. Martin
