On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 01:59:31PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Perhaps this should become > > > > argv_array_push(&process->args, cmd); > > > > so that there is no new memory leak? > > Sounds like a good idea (if I am not grossly mistaken as to what is > being suggested). > > Here is what I am planning to queue. > > -- >8 -- > From: Johannes Sixt <j6t@xxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 22:24:57 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH] sub-process: use child_process.args instead of child_process.argv This looks good (and is exactly the type of case for which I added "args" to the child_process in the first place). The commit message is well-explained and the patch looks obviously correct. -Peff
