Re: [PATCH 12/23] transport.c::get_refs_via_curl(): do not leak refs_url

From: Tay Ray Chuan <rctay89@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 6, 2009, 01:04 UTC
Message-ID: <be6fef0d0906051804k4d574d39v37dedf46896cb570@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <m3my8m5ryh.fsf@localhost.localdomain>

Hi,

On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 4:46 AM, Jakub Narebski<jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

>> From: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>
>> Subject: [WIP Patch 02/12] Some cleanup in get_refs_via_curl()
>
> So what is the title of this patch? "transport.c::get_refs_via_curl():
> do not leak refs_url" or "Some cleanup in get_refs_via_curl()"?

See my reply to patch #19.

> Perhaps it should be "transport.c: Do not leak refs_url in
> get_refs_via_curl()"...?

I think it's a matter of preference. I'll put them side-by-side to demonstrate this better:

transport.c: Do not leak refs_url in get_refs_via_curl() transport.c::get_refs_via_curl(): do not leak refs_url

There isn't any important difference between the two other than form.

-- 
Cheers,
Ray Chuan