Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes: > When a repository is configured to have a compatibility hash algorithm > we keep track of object ID mappings for loose objects via the loose > object map. This map simply maps an object ID of the actual hash to the > object ID of the compatibility hash. This loose object map is an > inherent property of the loose files backend and thus of one specific > object source. > > Refactor the interfaces to reflect this by requiring a `struct > odb_source` as input instead of a repository. This prepares for > subsequent commits where we will refactor writing of loose objects to > work on a `struct odb_source`, as well. > > Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> > --- > loose.c | 16 +++++++++------- > loose.h | 4 +++- > object-file.c | 6 +++--- > 3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/loose.c b/loose.c > index 519f5db7935..e8ea6e7e24b 100644 > --- a/loose.c > +++ b/loose.c > @@ -166,7 +166,8 @@ int repo_write_loose_object_map(struct repository *repo) > return -1; > } > > -static int write_one_object(struct repository *repo, const struct object_id *oid, > +static int write_one_object(struct odb_source *source, Nit: In one of the earlier commits, we renamed a function working on a particular source to have the '_source' suffix. Should we do the same here? I understand that this is related to a specific source (loose files) and probably would move into its own file under the objects namespace. But perhaps something to think about. [snip]
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
