Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
>> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> So did you or did you not audit the codepath?
>>
>> No; I was explaining why I didn't in the first place. Going through it now.
>
> So, this is what I have:
>
> interpret_branch_name -> interpret_branch_name (recursion)
> -> get_sha1_basic -> get_sha1 [context] (end-user data)
> -> substitute_branch_name -> dwim (end-user data)
> -> strbuf_branchname (callers pass a branch name; no @{u})
> -> revision.c:add_pending_object [with_mode] (end-user data)
>
> [die_]verify_filename -> builtin/rev-parse.c (end-user)
> -> builtin/reset.c (end-user)
> -> builtin/grep.c:cmd_grep (end-user)
> -> revision.c:setup_revisions (end-user data)
It seems that you are digging in the wrong direction? I was worried
about the callers of interpret_branch_name().
But whatever.
I looked at the callers myself while waiting for the test suite to
pass for five integration branches and I think the patch is safe.
There were some silent error returns from the function but your
patch did not touch them (which is good).
> We used to die in die_verify_filename() earlier, but we die in
> interpret_branch_name() after the patch.
I think that is a desired outcome. Thanks.
--
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