Re: Question about get_cached_commit_buffer()

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> I think that repeating the oid is intentional; the point is to dump how
> the traversal code is hitting the endpoints, even if we do so multiple
> times.
>
> The --oneline behavior just looks like a bug. I think --format is broken
> with --show-all, too (it does not show anything!).

I do not know about the --format thing, but the part about --oneline
being a bug is correct.  I've known about the oneline that does not
show anything other than the oid (not even end-of-line) for unparsed
commits for a long time---I just didn't bother looking into fixing
it exactly because this is only a debugging aid ;-)

> Though I think it would be equally correct to have set_commit_buffer()
> just throw away the existing cache entry and replace it with this one. I
> don't think there's a real reason to prefer the old to the new. And that
> might be worth doing if it would let us drop get_cached_commit_buffer()
> as a public function. But...
> ...
> In my opinion it's not really worth trying to make it private. The
> confusion you're fixing in the first two calls is not due to a bad API,
> but due to some subtly confusing logic in that code's use of the API. ;)

Yup.

> So I'd probably do this:
> ...

Makes sense to me.