| Message ID | pull.757.git.1602766160815.gitgitgadget@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | dir.c: fix comments to agree with argument name | expand |
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 12:49:20PM +0000, Nipunn Koorapati via GitGitGadget wrote: > diff --git a/dir.c b/dir.c > index 78387110e6..4c79c4f0e1 100644 > --- a/dir.c > +++ b/dir.c > @@ -1040,9 +1040,9 @@ static int add_patterns_from_buffer(char *buf, size_t size, > * an index if 'istate' is non-null), parse it and store the > * exclude rules in "pl". > * > - * If "ss" is not NULL, compute SHA-1 of the exclude file and fill > + * If "oid_stat" is not NULL, compute SHA-1 of the exclude file and fill Makes sense. This changed as part of 4b33e60201 (dir: convert struct sha1_stat to use object_id, 2018-01-28). Perhaps it would likewise make sense to stop saying "SHA-1" here, and just say "hash" (or even "object id", though TBH I think the fact that the hash is the same as an object-id is largely an implementation detail). -Peff
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes: >> - * If "ss" is not NULL, compute SHA-1 of the exclude file and fill >> + * If "oid_stat" is not NULL, compute SHA-1 of the exclude file and fill > > Makes sense. This changed as part of 4b33e60201 (dir: convert struct > sha1_stat to use object_id, 2018-01-28). Perhaps it would likewise make > sense to stop saying "SHA-1" here, and just say "hash" (or even "object > id", though TBH I think the fact that the hash is the same as an > object-id is largely an implementation detail). I do not quite get your "though TBH", though. I do agree with you that it is an implementation detail that an object is named after the hash of its contents, so saying "compute object name" probably makes sense in more context than "compute hash" outside the narrow parts of the code that actually implements how object names are computed. So I would have expected "because TBH", not "though TBH". Anyway. Nipunn, can you fix both of them in the same commit, as they are addressing a problem from the same cause (i.e. we are no longer SHA-1 centric). Thanks.
Happy to update it to use the object based terminology, though I'm not sure how the desired final result differs from above. I believe I said "compute oid" in the comment - and it is all in one commit. gitgitgadget appears to have shown a range-diff from the previous iteration, but the latest iteration is still one commit. --Nipunn On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 7:41 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: > > Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes: > > >> - * If "ss" is not NULL, compute SHA-1 of the exclude file and fill > >> + * If "oid_stat" is not NULL, compute SHA-1 of the exclude file and fill > > > > Makes sense. This changed as part of 4b33e60201 (dir: convert struct > > sha1_stat to use object_id, 2018-01-28). Perhaps it would likewise make > > sense to stop saying "SHA-1" here, and just say "hash" (or even "object > > id", though TBH I think the fact that the hash is the same as an > > object-id is largely an implementation detail). > > I do not quite get your "though TBH", though. I do agree with you > that it is an implementation detail that an object is named after > the hash of its contents, so saying "compute object name" probably > makes sense in more context than "compute hash" outside the narrow > parts of the code that actually implements how object names are > computed. So I would have expected "because TBH", not "though TBH". > > Anyway. Nipunn, can you fix both of them in the same commit, as > they are addressing a problem from the same cause (i.e. we are no > longer SHA-1 centric). > > Thanks.
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 11:41:36AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes: > > >> - * If "ss" is not NULL, compute SHA-1 of the exclude file and fill > >> + * If "oid_stat" is not NULL, compute SHA-1 of the exclude file and fill > > > > Makes sense. This changed as part of 4b33e60201 (dir: convert struct > > sha1_stat to use object_id, 2018-01-28). Perhaps it would likewise make > > sense to stop saying "SHA-1" here, and just say "hash" (or even "object > > id", though TBH I think the fact that the hash is the same as an > > object-id is largely an implementation detail). > > I do not quite get your "though TBH", though. I do agree with you > that it is an implementation detail that an object is named after > the hash of its contents, so saying "compute object name" probably > makes sense in more context than "compute hash" outside the narrow > parts of the code that actually implements how object names are > computed. So I would have expected "because TBH", not "though TBH". Sorry, I was just confused. The implementation detail I meant is that we are using a "struct object_id" in the oid_stat type (and also that "oid_stat" is likewise exposing too much). I thought this was another version of our stat_validity, where we are checking quickly to see if a random file that is not necessarily part of the working tree has been updated. And indeed, we do use it that way for files like .git/info/exclude, where having an "object_id" is really irrelevant. But we also use it for checking the validity of tracked files, where we populate it from an actual blob (see dir.c:do_read_blob). So it is actually reasonable to expose that in the name, and to think about it as an object_id. > Anyway. Nipunn, can you fix both of them in the same commit, as > they are addressing a problem from the same cause (i.e. we are no > longer SHA-1 centric). The v2 that Nipunn sent with "oid" in the comment looks good to me. -Peff
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes: >> Anyway. Nipunn, can you fix both of them in the same commit, as >> they are addressing a problem from the same cause (i.e. we are no >> longer SHA-1 centric). > > The v2 that Nipunn sent with "oid" in the comment looks good to me. OK, then all is good. Thanks.
Sounds good to me. Please let me know if there's anything further I need to do. I'm relatively new to git contributions - and my understanding is that at this point a maintainer would merge the commit at their leisure. Happy to do any further cleanup required to make that possible Thanks --Nipunn On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 9:23 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: > > Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes: > > >> Anyway. Nipunn, can you fix both of them in the same commit, as > >> they are addressing a problem from the same cause (i.e. we are no > >> longer SHA-1 centric). > > > > The v2 that Nipunn sent with "oid" in the comment looks good to me. > > OK, then all is good. Thanks.
diff --git a/dir.c b/dir.c index 78387110e6..4c79c4f0e1 100644 --- a/dir.c +++ b/dir.c @@ -1040,9 +1040,9 @@ static int add_patterns_from_buffer(char *buf, size_t size, * an index if 'istate' is non-null), parse it and store the * exclude rules in "pl". * - * If "ss" is not NULL, compute SHA-1 of the exclude file and fill + * If "oid_stat" is not NULL, compute SHA-1 of the exclude file and fill * stat data from disk (only valid if add_patterns returns zero). If - * ss_valid is non-zero, "ss" must contain good value as input. + * oid_stat.valid is non-zero, "oid_stat" must contain good value as input. */ static int add_patterns(const char *fname, const char *base, int baselen, struct pattern_list *pl, struct index_state *istate, @@ -1090,7 +1090,7 @@ static int add_patterns(const char *fname, const char *base, int baselen, int pos; if (oid_stat->valid && !match_stat_data_racy(istate, &oid_stat->stat, &st)) - ; /* no content change, ss->sha1 still good */ + ; /* no content change, oid_stat->oid still good */ else if (istate && (pos = index_name_pos(istate, fname, strlen(fname))) >= 0 && !ce_stage(istate->cache[pos]) &&