On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 03:07:19PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes: > > > In an ideal world, we would protect against this by fetching the > > promised object and then performing a collision check. But this feels > > exceedingly expensive and ultimately rather pointless, as more common > > writing paths like `write_loose_object()` don't protect against this > > scenario either. > > When writing loose object, wouldn't collision check kick in, and > didn't we compare "existing (not here but virtually here due to > promisor)" object and what write_loose_object() tried to create, at > least before this series which may (or may not; I lost track) have > disabled that check? > > I think the overall goal of deprecating the function with long name > with another function with a short-and-sweet name with different > default is a worthy thing, and while I do agree with "as we are > replacing function with another with different default, we need to > pass different flags to keep the same behaviour" early parts of the > series, I am not sure about these latter steps. Yeah, to be honest I wasn't totally sure whether to include these steps myself as I anticipated that they will lead to discussions that derail my original goal, which is to clean up the interfaces in the object subsystem. I decided to go with these where I thought that my train of thought is reasonable, but given your comments I'll probably just drop those patches. We can still adapt these callsites in the future as needed. Patrick
