Hi Junio, On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jakub Narębski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > In my personal opinion 'set_me_free_after_use' is not the best name, > > but I unfortunately do not have a better proposal. Maybe 'entrust_ptr', > > or 'entrusted_data' / 'entrusted_ptr' / 'entrusted'? > > Is this to accumulate to-be-freed pointers? Yes. > I think we often call a local variable that points at a piece of > memory to be freed "to_free", and that is an appropriate name for > what this function is trying to do. I changed it to that. > It is a bit surprising that the careless memory management in this > codepath leaks only the dumb pieces of memory (as opposed to > pointers to structures like string list that needs _clear() > functions, in which case we cannot get away with list of > to-be-freed). I guess we were somewhat lucky ;-) Yeah, the carelessness is more like a convenience where the config machinery is reused to parse the values. Ciao, Dscho