Re: [PATCH ps/stash-in-c] strbuf_vinsertf: provide the correct buffer size to vsnprintf

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Feb 5, 2019, 18:01 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqzhraru5x.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1902051140060.41@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

> Or that they are read with a fine toothed comb, but that the focus lies
> more on style and maintainability than correctness. We talked about this
> in the past.

Perhaps we can do better the next time, then. I find unreadable code is impossible to reason about its correctness, so you'd need to pay attention to style and maintenance issues to quickly get past that step.

Show 12 quoted lines

>> Thanks for finding it.  This needs to be squashed into bfc3fe33
>> ("strbuf.c: add `strbuf_insertf()` and `strbuf_vinsertf()`",
>> 2018-12-20)?
>
> Since you want to open that can of worms again, you will also want to
> squash ed5d77f7d382 (stash: fix segmentation fault when files were added with
> intent, 2019-01-18) into 1f5a011d90ec (stash: convert create to builtin,
> 2018-12-20). It will have trivial merge conflicts, and the addition of the
> regression test will be surprising without modifying the commit message to
> explain that there was a regression that was fixed very late in the
> development, and that that regression test intends to guarantee that it
> won't need to be fixed again.

Are you saying that I should not merge the series as is but expect an update that does these squashing? I was planning to make this a merge-down day, but let me exclude this topic from the "for next" batch just in case for today.

Thanks.