When reading object info via a packfile we yield one of two types:
- The object can either be OI_PACKED, which is what a caller would
typically expect.
- Or it can be OI_DBCACHED if it is stored in the delta base cache.
The latter really is an implementation detail though, and callers
typically don't care at all about the difference. Furthermore, the
information whether or not it is part of the delta base cache can
already be derived via the `is_delta` field, so the fact that we discern
between OI_PACKED and OI_DBCACHED only further complicates the
interface.
There aren't all that many callers that care about the `whence` field in
the first place. In fact, there's only three:
- `packfile_store_read_object_info()` checks for `whence == OI_PACKED`
and then populates the packfile information of the object info
structure. We now start to do this also for deltified objects, which
gives its callers strictly more information.
- `repack_local_links()` wants to determine whether the object is part
of a promisor pack and checks for `whence == OI_PACKED`. If so, it
verifies that the packfile is a promisor pack. It's arguably wrong
to declare that an object is not part of a promisor pack only
because it is stored in the delta base cache.
- `is_not_in_promisor_pack_obj()` does the same, but checks that a
specific object is _not_ part of a promisor pack. The same reasoning
as above applies.
Drop the OI_DBCACHED enum completely. None of the callers seem to care
about the distinction.
Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
OI_CACHED,
OI_LOOSE,
OI_PACKED,
- OI_DBCACHED
} whence;
union {
/*
oidclr(oi->delta_base_oid, p->repo->hash_algo);
}
- oi->whence = in_delta_base_cache(p, obj_offset) ? OI_DBCACHED :
- OI_PACKED;
+ oi->whence = OI_PACKED;
out:
unuse_pack(&w_curs);