Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 11:17:39AM -0800, Jonathan Tan wrote: > >> Thanks everyone once again and sorry for the churn. Hopefully I got it >> right this time. >> >> open_loose_object() is documented to return the path of the object >> we found, so I think we already have that covered (if we detect that >> an object is corrupt, it follows that we would already have found the >> object in the first place). > > This version looks good to me. Thanks for your persistence. :) I think > the end result is very nicely done. Yeah, this looks good. Nothing added to or removed from the previous round other than what I found questionable during the review of that round. Thanks, both.
