From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) 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,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B11F20248 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 03:49:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726897AbfCNDtp (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Mar 2019 23:49:45 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-f65.google.com ([209.85.221.65]:33918 "EHLO mail-wr1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726656AbfCNDto (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Mar 2019 23:49:44 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f65.google.com with SMTP id k1so3720349wre.1 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 20:49:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=NTGPD5Gl65EdA5fnH97klGm8pFaxISsk/bflj7Qs+i4=; b=jYlcv7ThlqC/1ac9zTUl2mIQXEI+zXJUnuLV2rT00wChOP4nQqOP5I6+pzSmTVZ9W9 plFQrl/bTqdi/027+dl5iMrJseWSVCz8gyLvAInxiHJQOPfooMtjKwlkM95haGHT+9FW zl3JOc8CWygVDj2zjyYwJYP8mBABUSdk+x6VAOfzfuExbZa0BEFNKcIrakvnLrSov6oy 1evzAYWQtdHtr4mZV6Sth+NnGTLsAh4V1/B3Sz0lFRaMtqesqCNuvXhOzanwtqEIx4AV Q1/GFlBR/iO1X0rz8YI8V8nU+fMUkxqUzAK7uI8YuCFC2ImUYN0JQNE8h20vm9JY0YuV SRNA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=NTGPD5Gl65EdA5fnH97klGm8pFaxISsk/bflj7Qs+i4=; b=fKnIqSRoOBR/yLcxPSh+Vt1/YLAwl/PLJxm1KRpQP06wiowzUmIBOxvmj3qHfhrmF9 LIcK/nXfQsfzOn3eD1555eP/w4+pmclEIZ1FBuPZFurzPySuHTLsBKDLi/kMes+M/WGC HLNOH6hpOP+tgnnmrUInIhKdeebEHhgmjTB4gM3LjdTSLehJA+CloBwGFgh4QeCUURio DPNenYb51qX1cEriMAGpw+ar/J2mbKPTPYIY9mTQMGHkpXcS5bn9YSk7XKuk8FxwnvrA FkUYdZlflHgBa1qnipJxcODByuvVperVPOwmJp4hSYbxZUCyF3i8fzh3uHCmtoyPJOSw 85Og== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU7f/h/RgYMt7yw8IgswgaRN1+ldf30kjkHBtdHzpWx1thMhSGu dMTTSiv2cgLGtDG21mN/Tbw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwMK4tTBVfQq/nksOzKWShckWRFeXFy9mx4vUHB2o1wDEmolDXYOZH/jVkYmW1iFXXDkXS/8w== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:428d:: with SMTP id k13mr20527787wrq.147.1552535382871; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 20:49:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (141.255.76.34.bc.googleusercontent.com. [34.76.255.141]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b18sm14039030wro.80.2019.03.13.20.49.42 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 13 Mar 2019 20:49:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] get_oid(): when an object was not found, try harder References: <994446236d05d9d014e12a5102bcf9be222e3b57.1552472189.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> <20190314022245.GA1414@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 12:49:41 +0900 In-Reply-To: <20190314022245.GA1414@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Wed, 13 Mar 2019 22:22:46 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: >> 1. is reprepare_packed_git() a bit too heavy-weight, if the only >> thing we are addressing is the loose-object cache going stale? > > It's not the only thing we are addressing. :) > > Try this: Yes, I knew about repacking. I was alluding to the overly heavy reference to loose-object-cache in the log message ;-). >> 2. is there a way to cleanly avoid the three-line duplicate? > > Yeah, as you noted, I think the boilerplate is worse than the > duplication. The most readable alternative to me is a separate function, > like: > ... > But what I find particularly ugly is not just that it's more lines, but > that the assumptions and outputs of do_get_short_oid() aren't > particularly clear. Yeah, exactly.