From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFA881F403 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 20:20:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752365AbeFEUUN (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jun 2018 16:20:13 -0400 Received: from mail-pl0-f66.google.com ([209.85.160.66]:34500 "EHLO mail-pl0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752144AbeFEUUM (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jun 2018 16:20:12 -0400 Received: by mail-pl0-f66.google.com with SMTP id g20-v6so2240005plq.1 for ; Tue, 05 Jun 2018 13:20:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0G39u9tG/rVDSga0/Gx6NxIKy7VxTt6OUS5RQjixTX0=; b=IJvDLBdMD60bNwEPM89o730yArRaXBraLYNlZuVZAEzSpDHsdW8RrgKbHessB7rRIA mwAe/Wzsye6T1n1CYyl3fTONwm/vgOKIy0D8DJeb9+raN1CFbgsmyp+OtOCZn29O3KC+ ZktvEvb9xbMxG/XPRakjDDqz131mDrubP4x4ti4SwcBYGX6XjBsTxQc1qp+satJ+YO9S M5Qtb2r2TIAYyUe/zmm5cDmyBAG02qHvwuuC0uxtemnakmsgGCk/AuCGsVg5RooIQwHw OYKQoM+Rh9Mob8OfgXx4lq/b8YOeKebBHsV8arLHqDjjLGp/AXczGO/QnFXSjvABo0i8 nYAQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0G39u9tG/rVDSga0/Gx6NxIKy7VxTt6OUS5RQjixTX0=; b=loHlkkl+hjEDUa3mDCY9hOQSHMTSiIw24Aa+d8nA06FUoj0yQKkWUDfraHdA0sBkLV ZwC1HuzV1QtkHBaaY+GkKZg5benjzLyB6CFxIelBUVaCkEqSRWF5Heq6Yp/aeNDN4ojE wzI3SF7hHA/j0kmu9odqujx0Ra2gYL0QhYvoEJ6upft6UklU9NjdEnE51EXgel01Hoo+ qRtEzvC7n873454xGamEGQLQsk+U+w7ariej2/ih33seZo7bSo+bhb6/iZWEGLKn2/0N rvwLHcS+oGNQG9LsIYCMiNoSoe8TIccxv5T9aOfxkirk5i41bbwnEkOWyI2XlDx9TQ1m 6z6A== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E3qPkP233P+oYRixdg5uGDiuQ8uxTRp8v3hiGEOpjpCj/ssVRuJ p6lgtWPZnbTiqHkdRy3KTqeCDUz29qsDuI8RVJoqCA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKIilLQZ4dlDLNZRVVMimV7+Cxx9mQ2oJAewBVyl69Hotoxn2gcscky5fqgyfVN5q/JCSG5bPNWfoQDG9kxa7H8= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:b81:: with SMTP id 1-v6mr86588plr.321.1528230012309; Tue, 05 Jun 2018 13:20:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a17:90a:760e:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 13:20:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20180605195816.GC158365@google.com> References: <20180605162939.GA158365@google.com> <20180605195440.8505-1-avarab@gmail.com> <20180605195816.GC158365@google.com> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_=C3=85gren?= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 22:20:11 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] refspec: refactor & fix free() behavior To: Brandon Williams Cc: =?UTF-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsCBCamFybWFzb24=?= , Git Mailing List , Junio C Hamano , Stefan Beller Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 5 June 2018 at 21:58, Brandon Williams wrote: > On 06/05, =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason wrote: >> Since Martin & Brandon both liked this direction I've fixed it >> up. >> >> Martin: I didn't want to be the author of the actual fix for the bug >> you found, so I rewrote your commit in 3/3. The diff is different, and >> I slightly modified the 3rd paragraph of the commit message & added my >> sign-off, but otherwise it's the same. > > Thanks for writing up a proper patch series for this fix. I liked > breaking up your diff into two different patches to make it clear that > all callers of refpsec_item_init relying on dieing. Me too. >> Martin =C3=85gren (1): >> refspec: initalize `refspec_item` in `valid_fetch_refspec()` I was a bit surprised at first that this wasn't a "while at it" in the second patch, but on second thought, it does make sense to keep this separate. Thanks for picking this up and polishing it. Just noticed: s/initalize/initialize/. That would be my fault... Martin