Do you really think these two patches belong to the series, I seriously have to wonder? The series uses strbuf_initf() from 7 call sites to save a few lines per each call site, and for that you have a 140-line patch to strbuf.c (in aggregate between this one and the "Oops, I need to support this, too" one after this). This new code that is not essential to the series need to be carefully vetted to avoid risks of potentially affecting existing 70+ users of strbuf_addf(), which used to use (hopefully more trustworthy) vsnprintf() from the system, but now uses the new and unproven strbuf_vaddf() that has "Only supports %<these>" disclaimer at the top. I am not saying the strbuf_vaddf() patch is not worth considering. It might help platforms without a working vsnprintf(). But its merit needs to be defended separately, and I do not want "merge in C" series to be taken hostage by it. Other than that, I did not see anything obviously wrong in the diff between the previous round and this series. Thanks. -- 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
