Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > @@ -1035,8 +1088,6 @@ static int git_parse_source(struct config_source *cs, config_fn_t fn, >> > int comment = 0; >> > size_t baselen = 0; >> > struct strbuf *var = &cs->var; >> > ... >> > + /* >> > + * FIXME for whatever reason, do_event passes the _previous_ event, so >> > + * in order for our callback to receive the error event, we have to call >> > + * do_event twice >> > + */ >> > + do_event(cs, CONFIG_EVENT_ERROR, &event_data); >> > + do_event(cs, CONFIG_EVENT_ERROR, &event_data); >> > + return -1; >> > } >> >> This indeed is very curious and needs to be looked into before we >> proceed further. How does the current control flow cope with the >> behaviour? > > I plan to look at this more fully later, but about this, I wrote about > this in a reply to the previous version: > https://lore.kernel.org/git/20230804213457.1174493-1-jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx/ Thanks. Also if you have time, can you comment on the latest round of the fix to the Bloom filter hash functions that Taylor sent the latest iteration for, either to give it a "looks perfect" to nudge it to merge it down, to give it a further polishing, or whatever. Thanks.
