Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Still, I'd suggest move the test into the caller, firstly because it > is the only place that special. Also, I can't think of a proper reason > to add a NULL ref to a reflist, and so the crashing tail_link_ref will > help us find the callers which use tail_link_ref incorrectly > (illogically too). > > As the result of patter expansion can be NULL (empty pattern, as it > seems), lets just check for it. I parked the patch below locally. > > diff --git a/remote.c b/remote.c > index 5e92378..58d63ed 100644 > --- a/remote.c > +++ b/remote.c > @@ -884,7 +884,8 @@ int get_fetch_map(struct ref *remote_refs, > rm->peer_ref->name); > } > > - tail_link_ref(ref_map, tail); > + if (ref_map) > + tail_link_ref(ref_map, tail); > > return 0; > } I disagree with Alex's argument above, because the result of the pattern expansion can be NULL due to a pattern that matched nothing from the remote. This can easily happen if the user originally configured "remote.$name.fetch = +refs/heads/subdir/*:..." and then the remote deletes all branches from refs/heads/subdir at some point in the future. I think the above patch is the only thing to do here. Perhaps Alex can write up a formal patch and send it to back to the list and CC Lars Hjemli <hjemli@xxxxxxxxx> so he can put it into the patch queue. -- Shawn. - 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
