Sverre Rabbelier <srabbelier@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 21:16, Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> If we change the ls-remote.c case, it becomes impossible for a struct >> transport to ever have a NULL remote field. And the change to ls-remote >> removes a special case. I'd go so far as to say that ls-remote.c should >> provide a struct remote, and transport_get should enforce that there's a >> struct remote. > > If that is the case (that we can eliminate the only special case), I > agree that we should fix it there, where it will be the least effort. > I got the impression from Junio's original post that there are > multiple places that would have to be fixed, and I figured that we > should fix it where it will be the least amount of effort :). No, I genuinely didn't know what Daniel's intention was when a transport has NULL in its remote field. If it is much easier and cleaner not to allow such a transport, then let's declare that and fix ls-remote that should be the sole existing caller that used to use such a transport. Thanks for looking into this, both of you. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html