On Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 10:12:13AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Hmph, who passes IGNORE_LOOSE and why? Explaining the answer to
> that question would give us confidence why this change is safe.
>
> If the reason IGNORE_LOOSE is set by the callers is because they are
> interested only in locally packed objects, then this change would
> break them because they end up triggering the lazy fetch in the
> updated code, no? Or do all callers that set IGNORE_LOOSE drop the
> fetch_if_missing global before calling us?
I wondered who those callers might be, too, because it is such a weird
thing for a caller to want to care about (usually we try to abstract the
object database).
It looks like the only user went away in 97b2fa08b6 (fetch-pack: drop
custom loose object cache, 2018-11-12). So I think we just want to drop
it:
diff --git a/object-file.c b/object-file.c
index 26290554bb..cf724bc19b 100644
--- a/object-file.c
+++ b/object-file.c
@@ -1575,9 +1575,6 @@ static int do_oid_object_info_extended(struct repository *r,
if (find_pack_entry(r, real, &e))
break;
- if (flags & OBJECT_INFO_IGNORE_LOOSE)
- return -1;
-
/* Most likely it's a loose object. */
if (!loose_object_info(r, real, oi, flags))
return 0;
diff --git a/object-store.h b/object-store.h
index 1be57abaf1..371629c1e1 100644
--- a/object-store.h
+++ b/object-store.h
@@ -434,8 +434,6 @@ struct object_info {
#define OBJECT_INFO_ALLOW_UNKNOWN_TYPE 2
/* Do not retry packed storage after checking packed and loose storage */
#define OBJECT_INFO_QUICK 8
-/* Do not check loose object */
-#define OBJECT_INFO_IGNORE_LOOSE 16
/*
* Do not attempt to fetch the object if missing (even if fetch_is_missing is
* nonzero).
We could also renumber the later flags to keep them compact, but I don't
have a strong opinion there.
-Peff
