Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> 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).
Exactly.
> It looks like the only user went away in 97b2fa08b6 (fetch-pack: drop
> custom loose object cache, 2018-11-12).
Nice, very nice.
> 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).
This would make Jonathan's change a lot transparent and intuitive if
it is based on it, I would think.
Thanks for digging.
