Re: [PATCH v4] cache-tree.c: remove implicit dependency on the_repository

Chinmoy Chakraborty [off-list ref] writes:

Is it safe to make this assumption?

It was the question I asked, and I didn't see a reason to believe it
is safe.

I mean to be completely sure of this, one would have to track back
to all the callers.

Yes.  If we audit the callers to make sure istate->repo always
points at the right repository, add missing assignment to
istate->repo as necessary, and add

	if (!istate->repo)
		BUG("caller of cache_tree_udpate() did not fill istate->repo");

then that would be an improvement.  But...

Should a check like:

    if(!istate->repo)

        istate->repo = the_repository;

be required?

... if we add such an "if the caller did not set istate->repo,
assume the_repository" code, then the resulting code explicitly
assumes that the istate the caller passed to us without setting
istate->repo belongs to the default repository.

I do not quite see the point of such a change---it is not all that
better than "implicit dependency on the_repository" the patch tries
to address, is it?