Message ID | cover.1671045259.git.jonathantanmy@google.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | Don't lazy-fetch commits when parsing them | expand |
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 11:17:39AM -0800, Jonathan Tan wrote: > Thanks everyone once again and sorry for the churn. Hopefully I got it > right this time. > > open_loose_object() is documented to return the path of the object > we found, so I think we already have that covered (if we detect that > an object is corrupt, it follows that we would already have found the > object in the first place). This version looks good to me. Thanks for your persistence. :) I think the end result is very nicely done. -Peff
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes: > On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 11:17:39AM -0800, Jonathan Tan wrote: > >> Thanks everyone once again and sorry for the churn. Hopefully I got it >> right this time. >> >> open_loose_object() is documented to return the path of the object >> we found, so I think we already have that covered (if we detect that >> an object is corrupt, it follows that we would already have found the >> object in the first place). > > This version looks good to me. Thanks for your persistence. :) I think > the end result is very nicely done. Yeah, this looks good. Nothing added to or removed from the previous round other than what I found questionable during the review of that round. Thanks, both.