From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70BFE20323 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 13:06:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759562AbdCVNGo (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Mar 2017 09:06:44 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:49290 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759554AbdCVNGj (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Mar 2017 09:06:39 -0400 Received: (qmail 26663 invoked by uid 109); 22 Mar 2017 13:06:20 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 13:06:20 +0000 Received: (qmail 25880 invoked by uid 111); 22 Mar 2017 13:06:33 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 09:06:33 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 22 Mar 2017 09:06:15 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 09:06:15 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Michael Haggerty Cc: Junio C Hamano , =?utf-8?B?Tmd1eeG7hW4gVGjDoWkgTmfhu41j?= Duy , David Turner , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/20] commit_packed_refs(): use reference iteration Message-ID: <20170322130615.hcl5vrezkcr45fdk@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20170320180532.vxzra6tpf3t7qjks@sigill.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 09:42:58AM +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote: > > Should we be checking that peel_error is only PEELED or NON_TAG? > > This is a good question, and it took me a while to figure out the whole > answer. At first I deleted this check without much thought because it > was just an internal consistency check that should never trigger. But > actually the story is more complicated than that. > > Tl;dr: the old code is slightly wrong and I think the new code is correct. OK, that all makes sense. Thanks for digging. -Peff