Re: [RFC PATCH] unpack-trees.c: handle empty deleted ita files

Varun Naik [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Either is fine as the implementation of the same semantics; I
however am not sure if two I-T-A entries should compare "same" or
"not same", or if we are better off catching the caller that feeds
two I-T-A entries to same() with a BUG().

I'd argue that two ita cache entries should be a BUG. Since we believe
that a cache entry in the tree can never have the intent-to-add bit set,
it suffices to show that no call to same() ever passes two cache entries
from the index.
...
The same argument probably extends to the conflicted bit, but changing
that is probably out of scope of this patch.

Yup.  I think the patch as-posted is fine.  I also agree that
tightening the validity check of parameters to same() is better done
as a separate topic.