Re: [PATCH 2/2] match_refs: search ref list tail internally
- From
Clemens Buchacher <drizzd@aon.at>
- Date
- May 28, 2009, 09:26 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20090528092624.GA8787@localhost>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vtz35hfk7.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:06:32AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 12 quoted lines
> It so happens that http-push.c never looked at remote_tail to do further > processing on the list after match_refs() returned, and that is why your > patch does not break http-push.c. > > Any third-party patch to http-push.c > that relied on the old guarantee will textually merge cleanly but will > subtly break with this change. > > Other parts of this patch removes the local "remote_tail" variables, and > it is very clear that they do not have this problem; any third-parth patch > will break if they used remote_tail after match_refs() returned, so this > change is a safe one for them.
Yes, I tried to get rid of remote_tail entirely, but I could not come up with a solution immediately. We could insert to the front of the list instead. I'll try that.
> I wonder what interaction this change will have with the http-push > clean-up Ray Chuan has been working on...
For me, t5540 currently segfaults on pu. I'm looking into it.