Re: [PATCH 1/4] Improve message-id generation flow control for format-patch

> On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 08:31:08PM +0000, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > > I wonder how the rule established by b315c5c (strbuf change: be
> > > sure ->buf is never ever NULL) and at the beginning of strbuf.h
> > > applies here.  I think the current implementation of strbuf
> > > happens to allow this, and it is very handy.  Perhaps the rule
> > > stated there should be loosened and allow copying the buf away
> > > when you know you have stuff in there (i.e. ->buf != slopbuf).
> > > Pierre, what do you think?
> > > 
> > > What the patch does itself is much nicer than the original.
> > 
> >   Why wouldn't you just use strbuf_detach ? I mean replacing:
> > 
> > +	info->message_id = buf.buf;
> > 
> > with:
> > 
> > +	info->message_id = strbuf_detach(&buf, NULL);
> > 
> >   isn't really hard to read, and has the nice side effect to prevent
> > errors that could happen in the future (like reusing buf and screwing
> > with info->message_id without noticing it). I'd rather stand on the safe
> > side here, it's more forward-compatible and idiot-proof[0].
> 
> Is it actually right to have buf go out of scope right after 
> strbuf_detach()? It sort of looks like it would leak memory from buf.buf. 
> I'm happy to do whatever the API wants there, and I didn't see anything to 
> leave the struct as if strbuf_release were called, but with the string 
> extracted for the caller.