dulwich-users team mailing list archive

[David Borowitz <dborowitz@xxxxxxxxxx>]

FYI, it looks like you showed up as both author and committer for this
change. I'm not going to be too picky about attribution, but if this is a
bug in the scripts you're using to push, seems like you should know about
it.

On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 14:58, Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Sun, 2010-08-22 at 20:06 -0700, David Borowitz wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 10:02, Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer@xxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> >
> >         On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 09:41 -0700, dborowitz@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >         > From: Dave Borowitz <dborowitz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >         >
> >         > Change-Id: I06fe864a6a89d1b77cffd13aac790c15b64224ff
> >         > ---
> >         >  NEWS                    |    2 ++
> >         >  dulwich/object_store.py |   13 +++++++++----
> >         >  2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >         >
> >         > diff --git a/NEWS b/NEWS
> >         > index 14cb030..75fe560 100644
> >         > --- a/NEWS
> >         > +++ b/NEWS
> >         > @@ -50,6 +50,8 @@
> >         >    * Use real in-memory objects rather than stubs for server
> >         tests.
> >         >      (Dave Borowitz)
> >         >
> >         > +  * Clean up MissingObjectFinder. (Dave Borowitz)
> >         > +
> >         >   API CHANGES
> >         >
> >         >    * ObjectStore.iter_tree_contents now walks contents in
> >         depth-first, sorted
> >         > diff --git a/dulwich/object_store.py
> >         b/dulwich/object_store.py
> >         > index 61192d7..162f102 100644
> >         > --- a/dulwich/object_store.py
> >         > +++ b/dulwich/object_store.py
> >         > @@ -711,8 +711,10 @@ class MissingObjectFinder(object):
> >         >
> >         >      def __init__(self, object_store, haves, wants,
> >         progress=None,
> >         >                   get_tagged=None):
> >         > -        self.sha_done = set(haves)
> >         > -        self.objects_to_send = set([(w, None, False) for w
> >         in wants if w not in haves])
> >         > +        haves = set(haves)
> >         > +        self.sha_done = haves
> >
> >         I have concerns about setting sha_done to haves here without
> >         copying it.
> >         It means we'll end up modifying the set that is being passed
> >         in by the
> >         caller whereas we previously werent.
> >
> >
> > The previous line (haves = set(haves)) still copies it. I just stored
> > it in a local to make the list comprehension faster.
> My bad, sorry. Clearly I should not do any code review after midnight.
>
> Merged, thanks.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jelmer
>
>