Re: [PATCH 1/3] builtin-remote: move duplicated cleanup code its own function

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 08:44:13PM -0500, Jay Soffian wrote:

> I spent about 5 minutes which was enough time for me to realize that
> the reason the previous author left it as "NEEDSWORK" is because
> fixing it is more than 5 minutes of work. This is the remote object --
> maybe you could offer me some clues that allow me to know which of its
> fields need to be freed individually:
> [...]
> I *think* const is a clue that the field need not be freed, because
> the pointer is to storage that is on the stack. But I wasn't sure, esp
> with the double pointers. And I really wasn't sure about the struct
> pointers.

OK, I am satisfied that it is not trivial, and doesn't need to be part
of this patch series. :)

Like I said, I don't actually know this corner of the code very well,
but since you hadn't mentioned it in your cover letter, I didn't know if
it was "too lazy to do cleanups" or "code is too scary to be cleaned
up".

-Peff