Re: [PATCH] remote-curl: simplify passing of push specs

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:

> On Wed, Jul 15, 2026 at 05:39:51PM +0200, René Scharfe wrote:
>> > 
>> We could add one.  Not sure it would make a measurable difference; if
>> the number of specs is huge there are probably other costs that dwarf
>> pushing them to a strvec.
>
> Yeah, I don't expect it to make a difference here, either. But by having
> it we could use it in more places going forward, and that might lead to
> tiny savings here and there that ultimately add up. So it'd be nudging
> folks to "do the right thing".

That's a sensible thought.

>> I have to admit that the simplicity of strvec_pushv() nudged me towards
>> using a NULL-terminated array here, though.  So just having a
>> strvec_pushvec() available could guide towards using the length-limited
>> strvec instead of a simpler NULL-terminated array (which explodes if
>> left unterminated).
>
> And that's not a huge issue by itself. I think the version you have here
> is totally fine, and I won't insist on a reroll. But I think it gives us
> a good opportunity to improve the status quo, if we want to take it.

Yeah, strvec_pushvec() might be a worthwhile thing to do, but that
can come independent of this topic.  The output from:

    $ git grep -n -e strvec_pushv\(

is easy enough to look through to find which callers pass a strvec
as the second parameter.  It should be quite straightforward to find
conversion candidates once the helper is actually implemented.  It
might even be possible to use Coccinelle for such a conversion.