From: Junio C Hamano Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 04:10:16 GMT Subject: Re: Fw: git-core: SIGSEGV during {peek,ls}-remote on HTTP remotes. Message-ID: <7vocnlworb.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: Sverre Rabbelier writes: > On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 21:16, Daniel Barkalow wrote: >> If we change the ls-remote.c case, it becomes impossible for a struct >> transport to ever have a NULL remote field. And the change to ls-remote >> removes a special case. I'd go so far as to say that ls-remote.c should >> provide a struct remote, and transport_get should enforce that there's a >> struct remote. > > If that is the case (that we can eliminate the only special case), I > agree that we should fix it there, where it will be the least effort. > I got the impression from Junio's original post that there are > multiple places that would have to be fixed, and I figured that we > should fix it where it will be the least amount of effort :). No, I genuinely didn't know what Daniel's intention was when a transport has NULL in its remote field. If it is much easier and cleaner not to allow such a transport, then let's declare that and fix ls-remote that should be the sole existing caller that used to use such a transport. Thanks for looking into this, both of you.