On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 09:48:56AM -0800, Stefan Beller wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 5:19 PM, brian m. carlson
> <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 03:54:46PM -0800, Stefan Beller wrote:
> >> @@ -434,12 +433,12 @@ static int link_alt_odb_entry_the_repository(const char *entry,
> >>       ent = alloc_alt_odb(pathbuf.buf);
> >>
> >>       /* add the alternate entry */
> >> -     *the_repository->objects.alt_odb_tail = ent;
> >> -     the_repository->objects.alt_odb_tail = &(ent->next);
> >> +     *r->objects.alt_odb_tail = ent;
> >> +     r->objects.alt_odb_tail = &(ent->next);
> >>       ent->next = NULL;
> >
> > I'm sure I'm missing something obvious, but it's not clear to me that
> > this transformation is correct.  Could you perhaps say a few words about
> > why it is?
> 
> This is a pretty open ended question, so I'll give it a try:

I apologize.  My question was about the use of ent and ent->next, but it
appears I merely misread the patch as converting from ent to
&(ent->next), but that's not the case.
-- 
brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
https://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only
OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204