From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 014E01F8C6 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 2021 11:28:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230150AbhGCLbV (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Jul 2021 07:31:21 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:34082 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229829AbhGCLbV (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Jul 2021 07:31:21 -0400 Received: from mail-ed1-x531.google.com (mail-ed1-x531.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::531]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87907C061762 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 2021 04:28:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ed1-x531.google.com with SMTP id i5so16933403eds.1 for ; Sat, 03 Jul 2021 04:28:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:references:user-agent:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qx3BM4bAGtHcmx0v96lPLan45TH1jhn8r6umvlnsUV0=; b=TrE7AYNUyvpEaOxmmqiyZPlSLvC+XpUwfuslQX11JR7jWWtpAw3uWRblAup/SAT9Ht ZmJc+qIFZ22kucBxR2rrc+EakUep9e29fD9231UW67KeISDMhCVVuRoKYn6TnGblTQlc KKYwJOMaiYd9BNMrJ8cddso8pzjB3Za50h2UnwTjn6va2+IPWD+DYAHeRqafjigCGvAG vu8yzbyXmBIdO5wIohfQHBINMU3BHKVX1Aw9bAQrbkGPiP47VsyGVfj+IxtUMEaeGzyQ krufMxcMFNjlqyXEs1uZRycroKnDxB0nKVtoFnLpneUamBhABkzsIWdl9kHCcrvjppLa Yt+Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:references:user-agent :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qx3BM4bAGtHcmx0v96lPLan45TH1jhn8r6umvlnsUV0=; b=pUe3sBJkT8gCSf0wFCfLOZHIFc9eXxUJ7vLwxcO+3S5Slf9TYQ+0AXFlTyInHEnZdp 2fTaSfTlyYQog9Surrq9TDHdqPjUOmsMBpTBCh46LQOWdLMTS3cYNo6XD5xEaJdj37ok gIfKHxkuU5mSABg4b4iIBNWMKnGzpI2sIg2blKXmqbY87Ep3a3Qv0fXr4v4MwnA0Zdpq p4+8neGY7hfRxNwX4ehsrPUMnw5uruUxAq9Cv2AseA4++C2CbfhQoIeXUt6Tj6E6bEIf q2uNu7jSLaDK1kiaXYREQVVY1MhPuXcAKkMqQPkGAIJweM0eGQQ8hj7EedmcUIIPi718 k9sQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532tsHY4brMaKZUCDJvbQo79enaQHzz332R028En0pmOGJEAHiwY B/SC6WjKRQ2+z8vAc52Swp0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzNgJVmYsv7pkzvMioQFgCyovUzgs4tTlScz3CDnDt/5fhkJYgLGo8PGoTzoinvogT3cWGIKA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:14d8:: with SMTP id f24mr4641947edx.195.1625311725083; Sat, 03 Jul 2021 04:28:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from evledraar (j57224.upc-j.chello.nl. [24.132.57.224]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g8sm2474536edw.89.2021.07.03.04.28.44 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 03 Jul 2021 04:28:44 -0700 (PDT) From: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason To: Jeff King Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano , Johannes Schindelin , Andrei Rybak Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] bundle.c: remove "ref_list" in favor of string-list.c API Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2021 13:28:32 +0200 References: User-agent: Debian GNU/Linux 11 (bullseye); Emacs 27.1; mu4e 1.5.13 In-reply-to: Message-ID: <87y2an8wlv.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jul 03 2021, Jeff King wrote: > On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 11:57:29AM +0200, =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bj= armason wrote: > >> This re-roll of v3 changes the discussion in the 1/3 commit message, >> it incorrectly referred to SANITIZE=3Dleak when I meant valgrind. >>=20 >> I also changed the bundle_header_init() pattern to use the same >> "memcpy() a blank" as in my parallel series to do that more generally. > > Thanks, this looks good to me. > > I'd probably word the discussion about die() a bit differently, but you've > already seen my expositions on leak-checking, and it's all tangent here. > So let's move forward with this, and we can let leak-checking > philosophies iron themselves out as we fix more cases. :) Thanks for the detailed review over multiple rounds.