From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] ignore: make sure we have an xdg path before using it Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 09:32:27 -0400 Message-ID: <20120724133227.GA14422@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20120724115357.GA7353@sigill.intra.peff.net> <1343132811-2296-1-git-send-email-Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, gitster@pobox.com To: Matthieu Moy X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jul 24 15:32:37 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1StfE4-0000mi-JY for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 15:32:36 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752662Ab2GXNcb (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2012 09:32:31 -0400 Received: from 75-15-5-89.uvs.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([75.15.5.89]:60237 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750897Ab2GXNca (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2012 09:32:30 -0400 Received: (qmail 17113 invoked by uid 107); 24 Jul 2012 13:32:31 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 09:32:31 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 24 Jul 2012 09:32:27 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1343132811-2296-1-git-send-email-Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 02:26:51PM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote: > Commit e3ebc35 (config: fix several access(NULL) calls, 2012-07-12) was > fixing access(NULL) calls when trying to access $HOME/.config/git/config, > but missed the ones when trying to access $HOME/.config/git/ignore. Fix > and test this. > > Signed-off-by: Matthieu Moy > --- > This can be appended to Jeff's serie. I thought if we had 3 bug > instances and already fixed 2, why not fix the (hopefully last) > one ;-). Thanks. Looks obviously correct to me. -Peff