All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>
To: peff@peff.net
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/23] parsing and fsck cleanups
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 16:49:31 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191024234931.44192-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191018044103.GA17625@sigill.intra.peff.net>

I've looked at the rest of the patch set and I think that this set is
worth taking.

>     This a string of refactors that ends up with all of the
>     type-specific fsck functions not getting an object struct at all.
>     My goal there was two-fold:
> 
>        - it makes it harder to introduce weirdness like we saw in
> 	 patches 5-8.
> 
>        - it _could_ make things less awkward for callers like index-pack
> 	 which don't necessarily have object structs. And at the end, we
> 	 basically have an fsck_object() that doesn't need an object
> 	 struct. But index-pack still calls fsck_walk(), which does (and
> 	 which relies on the parsed values to traverse). It's not
> 	 entirely clear to me whether index-pack needs to be doing
> 	 fsck_walk() in the first place, or if it should be relying on
> 	 the usual connectivity check.
> 
> 	 So I'm undecided whether this is worth taking on its own, or if
> 	 trying to avoid object structs in the fsck code is just a
> 	 fool's errand. I do think the result isn't too bad to look at,
> 	 though and there are some minor improvements along the way
> 	 (e.g., patch 17 is able to drop some awkwardness).

If we can partially avoid object structs in the fsck code, I think
that's an improvement too.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-10-24 23:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-10-18  4:41 [PATCH 0/23] parsing and fsck cleanups Jeff King
2019-10-18  4:42 ` [PATCH 01/23] parse_commit_buffer(): treat lookup_commit() failure as parse error Jeff King
2019-10-24  3:37   ` Junio C Hamano
2019-10-24 18:01     ` Jeff King
2019-10-18  4:43 ` [PATCH 02/23] parse_commit_buffer(): treat lookup_tree() " Jeff King
2019-10-24 23:12   ` Jonathan Tan
2019-10-24 23:22     ` Jeff King
2019-10-18  4:45 ` [PATCH 03/23] parse_tag_buffer(): treat NULL tag pointer " Jeff King
2019-10-18  4:47 ` [PATCH 04/23] remember commit/tag parse failures Jeff King
2019-10-24  3:51   ` Junio C Hamano
2019-10-24 23:25   ` Jonathan Tan
2019-10-24 23:41     ` Jeff King
2019-10-18  4:48 ` [PATCH 05/23] fsck: stop checking commit->tree value Jeff King
2019-10-24  3:57   ` Junio C Hamano
2019-10-18  4:49 ` [PATCH 06/23] fsck: stop checking commit->parent counts Jeff King
2019-10-18  4:51 ` [PATCH 07/23] fsck: stop checking tag->tagged Jeff King
2019-10-18  4:54 ` [PATCH 08/23] fsck: require an actual buffer for non-blobs Jeff King
2019-10-18  4:56 ` [PATCH 09/23] fsck: unify object-name code Jeff King
2019-10-24  6:05   ` Junio C Hamano
2019-10-24 18:07     ` Jeff King
2019-10-25  3:23       ` Junio C Hamano
2019-10-25 21:20         ` Jeff King
2019-10-18  4:56 ` [PATCH 10/23] fsck_describe_object(): build on our get_object_name() primitive Jeff King
2019-10-24  6:06   ` Junio C Hamano
2019-10-18  4:57 ` [PATCH 11/23] fsck: use oids rather than objects for object_name API Jeff King
2019-10-18  4:58 ` [PATCH 12/23] fsck: don't require object structs for display functions Jeff King
2019-10-18  4:58 ` [PATCH 13/23] fsck: only provide oid/type in fsck_error callback Jeff King
2019-10-18  4:58 ` [PATCH 14/23] fsck: only require an oid for skiplist functions Jeff King
2019-10-18  4:59 ` [PATCH 15/23] fsck: don't require an object struct for report() Jeff King
2019-10-18  4:59 ` [PATCH 16/23] fsck: accept an oid instead of a "struct blob" for fsck_blob() Jeff King
2019-10-18  4:59 ` [PATCH 17/23] fsck: drop blob struct from fsck_finish() Jeff King
2019-10-18  5:00 ` [PATCH 18/23] fsck: don't require an object struct for fsck_ident() Jeff King
2019-10-18  5:00 ` [PATCH 19/23] fsck: don't require an object struct in verify_headers() Jeff King
2019-10-18  5:00 ` [PATCH 20/23] fsck: rename vague "oid" local variables Jeff King
2019-10-18  5:01 ` [PATCH 21/23] fsck: accept an oid instead of a "struct tag" for fsck_tag() Jeff King
2019-10-18  5:01 ` [PATCH 22/23] fsck: accept an oid instead of a "struct commit" for fsck_commit() Jeff King
2019-10-18  5:02 ` [PATCH 23/23] fsck: accept an oid instead of a "struct tree" for fsck_tree() Jeff King
2019-10-24 23:49 ` Jonathan Tan [this message]
2019-10-25  3:11 ` [PATCH 0/23] parsing and fsck cleanups Junio C Hamano

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

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20191024234931.44192-1-jonathantanmy@google.com \
    --to=jonathantanmy@google.com \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=peff@peff.net \
    /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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.