On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 08:26:36AM -0800, Jonathan Tan wrote:
> > It may be worth mentioning bd0b42aed3 (fetch-pack: do not take shallow
> > lock unnecessarily - 2019-01-10). I believe this is the same problem
> > and a full solution was suggested but not implemented in that commit.
>
> For refere
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 7:06 AM brian m. carlson
> wrote:
> >
> > When we write an alternate shallow file in update_shallow, we write it
> > into the lock file. The string stored in alternate_shallow_file is
> > copied from the lock file path, but it is freed the moment that the lock
> > file is
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 7:06 AM brian m. carlson
wrote:
>
> When we write an alternate shallow file in update_shallow, we write it
> into the lock file. The string stored in alternate_shallow_file is
> copied from the lock file path, but it is freed the moment that the lock
> file is closed, since
When we write an alternate shallow file in update_shallow, we write it
into the lock file. The string stored in alternate_shallow_file is
copied from the lock file path, but it is freed the moment that the lock
file is closed, since we call strbuf_release to free that path.
This used to work, sinc
4 matches
Mail list logo