Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] sha1-array: support appending unsigned char hash

[Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>]

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 15:06:11 -0700
> Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> wrote:
>> > In a subsequent patch, sha1_file will need to append object names in the
>> > form of "unsigned char *" to oid arrays. Teach sha1-array support for
>> > that.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>
>>
>> This breaks the oid/sha1 barrier?
>
> Not sure what you mean by this. This patch is meant to be a change to
> make "unsigned char *"-using code able to create/modify oid arrays,
> while we migrate away from "unsigned char *" - I don't know of any
> barrier.

In my mind we have 2 states:
* the current state where we have "char *sha1"
* the future in which we have "struct object_id oid"

In both realms you can do things (and the current code
base has examples for both), but these 2 are connected
via only a couple well defined functions (sha1_to_hex,
oid_to_sha1) during the conversion phase.

So with that mindset I was slightly irritated to see a function
that uses both realms so interchangeably.

Revisiting that it is actually not that bad, but also a good
idea to have in the transition phase.

Sorry for the noise,
Stefan