On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 09:55:13AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Eric Wong <e@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > object-file.c::loose_object_info() accepts objects matching > > content_limit exactly, so it follows packfile handling allows > > slurping objects which match loose object handling and slurp > > objects with size matching the content_limit exactly. > > > > This change is merely for consistency with the majority of > > existing code and there is no user visible change in nearly all > > cases. The only exception being the corner case when the object > > size matches content_limit exactly where users will see a > > speedup from avoiding an extra lookup. > > > > Signed-off-by: Eric Wong <e@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > I would have preferred to see this (and also "is oi->content_limit > zero?" check I mentioned earlier) as part of the previous step, > which added this comparison that is not consistent with the majority > of existing code. It's not like importing from an external project > we communicate with only occasionally, in which case we may want to > import "pristine" source and fix it up separetly in order to make it > easier to re-import updated material. Same here. I don't think there is any reason to split this change out into a separate patch, but I do not feel strongly about it either way. Thanks, Taylor
