Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 08:27:13AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> I wonder if we can do something to separate these two concerns >> apart, using a trick similar to what we often use with an extra >> variable "to_free". Doing so would bloat the refspec_item, but >> unlike the references themselves, there won't be thousands of them, >> so it may not be an issue, perhaps? > > I had a similar thought while looking at this spot a while ago, so I dug > this attempt out of my stash. It's quite ugly, as you need to keep the > storage pointer and the const pointer in sync. Especially because > there's a lot of clever pointer indirection via match_name_with_pattern(). Ah, true. The patch itself does not look _too_ bad, but that may simply be because the original is bad enough ;-)
