Download raw body.
faster history traversal for 'got blame'
On 08/01/20(Wed) 09:26, Stefan Sperling wrote: > On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 08:33:06AM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > One question below: > > > > > @@ -129,6 +129,7 @@ > > > #define GOT_ERR_REF_NAME_MINUS 113 > > > #define GOT_ERR_GITCONFIG_SYNTAX 114 > > > #define GOT_ERR_REBASE_OUT_OF_DATE 115 > > > +#define GOT_ERR_CACHE_DUP_ENTRY 116 > > > > > > static const struct got_error { > > > int code; > > > @@ -265,6 +266,7 @@ static const struct got_error { > > > { GOT_ERR_GITCONFIG_SYNTAX, "gitconfig syntax error" }, > > > { GOT_ERR_REBASE_OUT_OF_DATE, "work tree must be updated before it " > > > "can be used to rebase a branch" }, > > > + { GOT_ERR_CACHE_DUP_ENTRY, "duplicate cache entry" }, > > > > Isn't a duplicated cache entry some kind of code error? Or this can > > happen in a repo? > > Just to catch coding errors. > I don't want to rely on asserts or other hard failures in this code. I understand. I was pointing this out in case you'd like to separate errors that can occur because they are part of the normal use of a system versus programming mistakes that we also generally name errors :)
faster history traversal for 'got blame'