From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Use strbuf in http code Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 10:36:53 -0800 Message-ID: <7vy7c3ogu2.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <1197219900-19334-1-git-send-email-mh@glandium.org> <1197219900-19334-2-git-send-email-mh@glandium.org> <7vy7c3pwek.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20071209182408.GA9427@glandium.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Nick Hengeveld To: Mike Hommey X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Dec 09 19:37:52 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1J1R2D-0001CK-Rs for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 19:37:50 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752895AbXLIShH (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Dec 2007 13:37:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751009AbXLIShG (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Dec 2007 13:37:06 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:39076 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751659AbXLIShE (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Dec 2007 13:37:04 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A7AF4445; Sun, 9 Dec 2007 13:36:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA9124444; Sun, 9 Dec 2007 13:36:55 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20071209182408.GA9427@glandium.org> (Mike Hommey's message of "Sun, 9 Dec 2007 19:24:08 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Mike Hommey writes: > Both codes are also buggy in case the ref is a symbolic ref, and that > happens. I got bitten by this while testing. > > Considering the assumption being made that refs are all properly filled > with sha1s, both codes are mostly equally bad. > > Fixing the issue would obviously be the subject for another patch. Ok, I'll reject [2/4] and expect a reroll.