Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> When we call branch_get() to lookup or create a "struct
> branch", we make sure the "merge" field is filled in so that
> callers can access it. But the conditions under which we do
> so are a little confusing, and can lead to two funny
> situations:
> ...
> In addition to those two fixes, this patch pushes the "do we
> need to setup merge?" logic down into set_merge, where it is
> a bit easier to follow.
Nicely done. Thanks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
> remote.c | 19 +++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/remote.c b/remote.c
> index bec8b31..ac17e66 100644
> --- a/remote.c
> +++ b/remote.c
> @@ -1636,6 +1636,19 @@ static void set_merge(struct branch *ret)
> unsigned char sha1[20];
> int i;
>
> + if (!ret)
> + return; /* no branch */
> + if (ret->merge)
> + return; /* already run */
> + if (!ret->remote_name || !ret->merge_nr) {
> + /*
> + * no merge config; let's make sure we don't confuse callers
> + * with a non-zero merge_nr but a NULL merge
> + */
> + ret->merge_nr = 0;
> + return;
> + }
> +
> ret->merge = xcalloc(ret->merge_nr, sizeof(*ret->merge));
> for (i = 0; i < ret->merge_nr; i++) {
> ret->merge[i] = xcalloc(1, sizeof(**ret->merge));
> @@ -1660,11 +1673,9 @@ struct branch *branch_get(const char *name)
> ret = current_branch;
> else
> ret = make_branch(name, 0);
> - if (ret && ret->remote_name) {
> + if (ret && ret->remote_name)
> ret->remote = remote_get(ret->remote_name);
> - if (ret->merge_nr)
> - set_merge(ret);
> - }
> + set_merge(ret);
> return ret;
> }
--
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