From: "Martin Ågren" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Jeff King <email@example.com> Cc: Git Mailing List <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "brian m . carlson" <email@example.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] setup: do not use invalid `repository_format` Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 22:46:52 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAN0heSpc_sap1cZktteRn3hyeuRx2w86Hd2kqxu4XFgHs75_Kw@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20181219153841.GB14802@sigill.intra.peff.net> On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 at 16:38, Jeff King <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 08:25:27AM +0100, Martin Ågren wrote: > > > Check that `version` is non-negative before using `hash_algo`. > Hmm. It looks like we never set repo_fmt.hash_algo to anything besides > GIT_HASH_SHA1 anyway. I guess the existing field is really just there in > preparation for us eventually respecting extensions.hashAlgorithm (or > whatever it's called). That was my understanding as well. Maybe I should have spelled it out. I think of the diff of this patch as "let's check `foo->valid` before we `use(foo->bar)`", which should only be able to regress in case foo isn't valid. And ... > Given what I said in my previous email about repos with a missing > "version" field, I wondered if this patch would be breaking config like: > > [core] > # no repositoryformatversion! > [extensions] > hashAlgorithm = sha256 > > But I'd argue that: > > 1. That's pretty dumb config that we shouldn't need to support. Even > if we care about handling the missing version for historical repos, > they wouldn't be talking sha256. ... this matches my thinking. > 2. Arguably we should not even look at extensions.* unless we see a > version >= 1. But we do process them as we parse the config file. > This is mostly an oversight, I think. We have to handle them as we > see them, because they may come out of order with respect to the > repositoryformatversion field. But we could put them into a > string_list, and then only process them after we've decided which > version we have. I hadn't thought too much about this. I guess that for some simpler extensions--versions dependencies it would be feasible to first parse everything, then, depending on the version we've identified, forget about any "irrelevant" extensions. Again, nothing I've thought much about, and seems to be safely out of scope for this patch. > So I think your patch is doing the right thing, and won't hurt any real > cases. But (of course) there are more opportunities to clean things up.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-19 21:47 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2018-12-18 7:25 [PATCH 0/3] setup: add `clear_repository_format()` Martin Ågren 2018-12-18 7:25 ` [PATCH 1/3] setup: drop return value from `read_repository_format()` Martin Ågren 2018-12-19 15:27 ` Jeff King 2018-12-19 21:42 ` Martin Ågren 2018-12-20 0:17 ` brian m. carlson 2018-12-20 2:52 ` Jeff King 2018-12-20 3:45 ` brian m. carlson 2018-12-20 14:53 ` Jeff King 2018-12-18 7:25 ` [PATCH 2/3] setup: do not use invalid `repository_format` Martin Ågren 2018-12-19 0:18 ` brian m. carlson 2018-12-19 21:43 ` Martin Ågren 2018-12-19 15:38 ` Jeff King 2018-12-19 21:46 ` Martin Ågren [this message] 2018-12-19 23:17 ` Jeff King 2018-12-20 0:21 ` brian m. carlson 2018-12-18 7:25 ` [PATCH 3/3] setup: add `clear_repository_format()` Martin Ågren 2018-12-19 15:48 ` Jeff King 2018-12-19 21:49 ` Martin Ågren 2019-01-14 18:34 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] " Martin Ågren 2019-01-14 18:34 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] setup: free old value before setting `work_tree` Martin Ågren 2019-01-14 18:34 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] setup: do not use invalid `repository_format` Martin Ågren 2019-01-15 19:31 ` Jeff King 2019-01-17 6:31 ` Martin Ågren 2019-01-22 7:07 ` Jeff King 2019-01-22 13:34 ` Martin Ågren 2019-01-22 21:45 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] setup: fix memory leaks with `struct repository_format` Martin Ågren 2019-01-22 21:45 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] setup: free old value before setting `work_tree` Martin Ågren 2019-01-22 21:45 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] setup: fix memory leaks with `struct repository_format` Martin Ågren 2019-01-23 5:57 ` Jeff King 2019-01-24 0:14 ` brian m. carlson 2019-01-25 19:25 ` Martin Ågren 2019-01-25 19:24 ` Martin Ågren 2019-01-25 19:51 ` Jeff King 2019-02-25 19:21 ` Martin Ågren 2019-02-26 17:46 ` Jeff King 2019-02-28 20:36 ` [PATCH v4 0/2] " Martin Ågren 2019-02-28 20:36 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] setup: free old value before setting `work_tree` Martin Ågren 2019-02-28 20:36 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] setup: fix memory leaks with `struct repository_format` Martin Ågren 2019-03-06 4:56 ` [PATCH v4 0/2] " Jeff King 2019-01-14 18:34 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] setup: add `clear_repository_format()` Martin Ågren
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=CAN0heSpc_sap1cZktteRn3hyeuRx2w86Hd2kqxu4XFgHs75_Kw@mail.gmail.com \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --subject='Re: [PATCH 2/3] setup: do not use invalid `repository_format`' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox: https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).