On 10/01/2023 06:17, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
Make the ensure_full_index() function stricter, and have it only
accept a non-NULL "struct index_state". This function (and this
behavior) was added in [1].
The only reason it needed to be this lax was due to interaction with
repo_index_has_changes(). See the addition of that code in .
Missing reference. Should this be [2]?
This
fixes one of the TODO comments added in 0c18c059a15, the other one was
already removed in [3].
The other reason for why this was needed dates back to interaction
with code added in [4]. In [5] we started calling ensure_full_index()
in unpack_trees(), but the caller added in 34110cd4e39 wants to pass
us a NULL "dst_index". Let's instead do the NULL check in
unpack_trees() itself.
1. 4300f8442a2 (sparse-index: implement ensure_full_index(), 2021-03-30)
2. 0c18c059a15 (read-cache: ensure full index, 2021-04-01)
3. d76723ee531 (status: use sparse-index throughout, 2021-07-14).
4. 34110cd4e39 (Make 'unpack_trees()' have a separate source and
destination index, 2008-03-06)
5. 6863df35503 (unpack-trees: ensure full index, 2021-03-30)
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason<avarab@xxxxxxxxx>
--
Philip
