On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 12:01:26PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > I'm working up a few patches in that area, which I'll send out in a few > > minutes. Once that is done, then I think the explanation you give above > > would be correct. > > If a follow-up is coming then I'd just drop this one. Thanks. OK, here it is. Took me a bit longer than I expected, as I wanted to figure out whether the second patch was actually fixing a bug (and if so, to add test coverage). Turns out that it is a real bug. The final patch is what you sent, rebased on top (though there are not any code changes; the underlying commits make the _explanation_ true, but no code change was required). I fixed up the nits I mentioned in my earlier email. [1/4]: filter_ref: avoid overwriting ref->old_sha1 with garbage [2/4]: filter_ref: make a copy of extra "sought" entries [3/4]: fetch_refs_via_pack: free extra copy of refs [4/4]: fetch-pack: remove dead assignment to ref->new_sha1 -Peff -- 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