From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] fix pack-refs pruning of refs/foo Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 03:46:11 -0400 Message-ID: <20140823074611.GA23670@peff.net> References: <20140823052334.GA17813@peff.net> <53F842E0.8000603@alum.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Ronnie Sahlberg To: Michael Haggerty X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Aug 23 09:46:19 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XL61h-0000hS-LK for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:46:17 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752558AbaHWHqO (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Aug 2014 03:46:14 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:57316 "HELO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752440AbaHWHqN (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Aug 2014 03:46:13 -0400 Received: (qmail 20752 invoked by uid 102); 23 Aug 2014 07:46:13 -0000 Received: from c-71-63-4-13.hsd1.va.comcast.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (71.63.4.13) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 02:46:13 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 23 Aug 2014 03:46:11 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <53F842E0.8000603@alum.mit.edu> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 09:29:36AM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote: > > [1/5]: git-prompt: do not look for refs/stash in $GIT_DIR > > [2/5]: pack-refs: prune top-level refs like "refs/foo" > > [3/5]: fast-import: clean up pack_data pointer in end_packfile > > [4/5]: fast-import: fix buffer overflow in dump_tags > > [5/5]: fast-import: stop using lock_ref_sha1 > > +1 on patches 1 and 2 > Patch 3 is outside of my area of competence > +1 on patch 4, which looks trivially correct. > +1 on patch 5, though I agree with peff that it can be omitted in > deference to Ronnie's work. Thanks. > By the way, while cleaning up in patch 5 you might take the chance to > rename the local variable ref_name to refname to be consistent with most > of our code, but this is by no means required. I had the exact same inclination, but dismissed it as me being too picky. :) I'll change it if I re-roll, but I think we'll end up just dropping that patch entirely. -Peff