Subject: Re: Bug in fetch-pack.c, please confirm

From: Jeff King <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:31:26 -0400

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 12:01:26PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> > I'm working up a few patches in that area, which I'll send out in a few
> > minutes. Once that is done, then I think the explanation you give above
> > would be correct.
> 
> If a follow-up is coming then I'd just drop this one.  Thanks.

OK, here it is. Took me a bit longer than I expected, as I wanted to
figure out whether the second patch was actually fixing a bug (and if
so, to add test coverage). Turns out that it is a real bug.

The final patch is what you sent, rebased on top (though there are not
any code changes; the underlying commits make the _explanation_ true,
but no code change was required). I fixed up the nits I mentioned in my
earlier email.

  [1/4]: filter_ref: avoid overwriting ref->old_sha1 with garbage
  [2/4]: filter_ref: make a copy of extra "sought" entries
  [3/4]: fetch_refs_via_pack: free extra copy of refs
  [4/4]: fetch-pack: remove dead assignment to ref->new_sha1

-Peff