Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: >> Making a shallow copy to give to parse_options() in callers that currently >> pass a strvec directly or indirectly seems like the simplest solution to >> me for now. > > Yes, I thought your original patch actually got to the root of the > problem. strvec owns the array and its elements, and parse-options wants > to munge the array itself (but not the elements). Making a shallow copy > is eliminates the conflict over ownership. Yup, it did look very sensible to me.
