Re: [PATCH] refs.c: add a function to sort a ref list, rather then sorting on add

[Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>]

Julian Phillips <julian@quantumfyre.co.uk> writes:

> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> ...
>> I think we would not call add_ref() to the same list with
>> duplicate names, unless (1) filesystem is grossly corrupt, (2)
>> somebody added a new ref while we are walking (how does
>> readdir() behave in such a case???), or (3) packed-refs file is
>> corrupt.
>
> This combined with the fact that the old code didn't check that the
> sha1 was the same suggests to me that this behaviour may actually have
> been a subtle bug?  Perhaps the best thing to do is die if we find two
> entries with the same name when sorting?

I am not sure what readdir() does if somebody adds a new ref
while we are walking the directory; I am hoping we would not get
the same thing in duplicates, but I dunno.

I think the most sensible thing to do is to check for
duplicates, discarding if the SHA-1 match and otherwise dying.