Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] refs/files-backend: add longer-scoped copy of string to list

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Sep 6, 2017, 23:45 UTC
Message-ID: <20170906234543.2lnja2lds62z7fog@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAN0heSr0AWj-QwchX2DPzkZs9cx1gsfUTevN4JD1Ze=2t-YZiQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 08:12:24PM +0200, Martin Ågren wrote:

Show 19 quoted lines

> On 5 September 2017 at 23:26, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> > Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> >
> >> I noticed the HEAD funniness, too, when looking at this earlier. I agree
> >> with Junio that it's not quite consistent with the general rule of
> >> "string list items point to their refnames", but I don't think it
> >> matters in practice.
> >
> > Yup, we are on the same page; the "fix" I was alluding to would look
> > exactly like what you wrote below, but I agree the distinction does
> > not matter in practice.  IOW, I do not think the code after Martin's
> > fix is wrong per-se.
> 
> Well, "not wrong per-se" tells me you'd feel slightly more comfortable
> about the state of things if we did this. ;)
> 
> I'll take Peff's hint, tweak/add comments for correctness and symmetry
> with the previous patch and add an if-BUG for symmetry. Peff: Do I have
> your sign-off? (Do I need it?)

Yes, you have my sign-off. Probably it is not necessary for such a trivial patch, but it never hurts to be sure.

> If we re-roll, would you prefer Peff's much smaller take on patch 2
> (strbuf_release where it matters, instead of sprinkling "goto out" all
> over)? I think me and him agreed that we'd be fine either way. I'd reuse
> my commit message, if I get his sign-off and "From:".

You are welcome to forge my sign-off there (but I really am OK with either approach).

-Peff