From: Clemens Buchacher <drizzd@aon.at>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 09:26:24 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] match_refs: search ref list tail internally
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:
> 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.