Hi Junio
On 13/10/2022 17:34, Junio C Hamano wrote:
"Phillip Wood via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
To avoid changing the behavior of "git rebase <upstream> <branch>" we
keep the existing call to read_ref() and use lookup_commit_reference()
on the oid returned by that rather than calling
lookup_commit_reference_by_name() which applies the ref dwim rules to
its argument.
I agree with the above in that _by_name was an overly broad and
wrong function to call. But ...
lookup_commit_reference() will dereference tag objects
but we do not expect the branch being rebased to be pointing to a tag
object.
... if we do not expect to see a tag object, why call _reference()
in the first place? Does lookup_commit() not work for the purpose
of this code?
I was wasn't convinced that the tag dereferencing was the only
difference between lookup_commit_reference() and lookup_commit().
lookup_commit() calls lookup_object() and if the object is not in the
parsed objects hash table it creates a new commit object with the given
oid without checking if the object exists. lookup_commit_reference()
calls parse_object() which handles replacement objects and checks the
object actually exists.
Best Wishes
Phillip
