On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 09:51:03AM -0700, Jonathan Tan wrote: > Currently, ref iterators access the object store each time they advance > if and only if the boolean flag DO_FOR_EACH_INCLUDE_BROKEN is unset. > (The iterators access the object store because, if > DO_FOR_EACH_INCLUDE_BROKEN is unset, they need to attempt to resolve > each ref to determine that it is not broken.) > > Also, the object store accessed is always that of the_repository, making > it impossible to iterate over a submodule's refs without > DO_FOR_EACH_INCLUDE_BROKEN (unless add_submodule_odb() is used). > > As a first step in resolving both these problems, replace the > DO_FOR_EACH_INCLUDE_BROKEN flag with a struct repository pointer. This > commit is a mechanical conversion - whenever DO_FOR_EACH_INCLUDE_BROKEN > is set, a NULL repository (representing access to no object store) is > used instead, and whenever DO_FOR_EACH_INCLUDE_BROKEN is unset, a > non-NULL repository (representing access to that repository's object > store) is used instead. Right now, the locations in which > non-the_repository support needs to be added are marked with BUG() > statements - in a future patch, these will be replaced. (NEEDSWORK: in > this RFC patch set, this has not been done) I think your goal here of passing around a repository object is good. But rolling the meaning of DO_FOR_EACH_INCLUDE_BROKEN into an implicit "do we have a non-NULL repository" makes things awkward, I think. As you noticed, we can't get rid of the flags parameter entirely. We still have DO_FOR_EACH_PER_WORKTREE_ONLY. But I also have a series which adds another flag which pairs with INCLUDE_BROKEN. Having half of the logic implicit in the repository pointer and half in a flag would be weird. I'll post that series in a moment, but what I'm wondering here is: would it be that big a deal to just pass the repository object around, and it is simply not used if INCLUDE_BROKEN is passed? -Peff
