My apologies! I based my work off of maint, branching off of eea591. My reasoning was that Documentation/SubmittingPatches states that "a bugfix should be based on 'maint'". [1] Now that I think about it, this is probably not the kind of "bug" that statement had in mind.
Should I reroll the patch based on master? - Brian Gesiak [1] https://github.com/git/git/blob/4a28f169ad29ba452e0e7bea2583914c10c58322/Documentation/SubmittingPatches#L9 On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Jeremiah Mahler <jmmah...@gmail.com> wrote: > Brian, > > On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:33:42AM +0900, Brian Gesiak wrote: >> xcalloc takes two arguments: the number of elements and their size. >> run_add_interactive passes the arguments in reverse order, passing the >> size of a char*, followed by the number of char* to be allocated. >> Rearrgange them so they are in the correct order. >> >> Signed-off-by: Brian Gesiak <modoca...@gmail.com> >> --- >> builtin/add.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/builtin/add.c b/builtin/add.c >> index 672adc0..488acf4 100644 >> --- a/builtin/add.c >> +++ b/builtin/add.c >> @@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ int run_add_interactive(const char *revision, const char >> *patch_mode, >> int status, ac, i; >> const char **args; >> >> - args = xcalloc(sizeof(const char *), (pathspec->nr + 6)); >> + args = xcalloc((pathspec->nr + 6), sizeof(const char *)); >> ac = 0; >> args[ac++] = "add--interactive"; >> if (patch_mode) >> > > This patch doesn't apply to any of the branches I have available > (master, pu, next). And there is no line containing "pathspec->nr + 6" > anywhere in my builtin/add.c. Which branch is your work based off? > > -- > Jeremiah Mahler > jmmah...@gmail.com > http://github.com/jmahler -- 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
