Ramkumar Ramachandra <artag...@gmail.com> writes:

> Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
>> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> So did you or did you not audit the codepath?
>> No; I was explaining why I didn't in the first place.  Going through it now.
> So, this is what I have:
> interpret_branch_name -> interpret_branch_name (recursion)
>                       -> get_sha1_basic -> get_sha1 [context] (end-user data)
>                       -> substitute_branch_name -> dwim (end-user data)
>                     -> strbuf_branchname (callers pass a branch name; no @{u})
>                     -> revision.c:add_pending_object [with_mode] (end-user 
> data)
> [die_]verify_filename -> builtin/rev-parse.c (end-user)
>                     -> builtin/reset.c (end-user)
>                     -> builtin/grep.c:cmd_grep (end-user)
>                     -> revision.c:setup_revisions (end-user data)

It seems that you are digging in the wrong direction?  I was worried
about the callers of interpret_branch_name().

But whatever.

I looked at the callers myself while waiting for the test suite to
pass for five integration branches and I think the patch is safe.
There were some silent error returns from the function but your
patch did not touch them (which is good).

> We used to die in die_verify_filename() earlier, but we die in
> interpret_branch_name() after the patch.

I think that is a desired outcome.  Thanks.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to