Hi Oswald
On 23/03/2023 21:36, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 07:34:57PM +0000, Phillip Wood wrote:
On 23/03/2023 16:22, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
... instead of as a commit, which makes the purpose clearer and will
simplify things later.
given that we want onto to be a commit I'm not sure how this makes
anything clearer.
it makes it clearer that we need only the oid, not any other part of the
commit object. and pulling ahead the "extraction" reduces the visual
noise further down.
As a side effect, this change revealed that skip_unnecessary_picks() was
butchering the commit object due to missing const-correctness. Slightly
adjust its API to rectify this.
I don't think this is correct. If you look at the original code it
makes a copy of the oid and uses the copy when calling
skip_unnecessary_picks()
oops, you're quite right. (facepalm)
imo the change still makes sense, though, as it replaces the relatively
expensive deep copies with simple pointer updates. so just fix the
commit message?
I think you should just drop this patch. Copying struct object_id is
cheap and idiomatic in the code base. If you grep for
"struct object_id \*\*[a-zA-Z0-9_]*[,)]"
you'll see that there are very few matches and all but one of those are
passing an array.
Best Wishes
Phillip
