On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 06:21:53PM +0100, Guillaume Munch wrote: > Le 04/12/2016 à 17:04, Enrico Forestieri a écrit : > > > > Weak arguments, given that you say the patch was written with the > > proper fix in mind (which is not in stable). > > It is probably clear to Enrico (I hope) but maybe less to people who did > not follow the discussions and the mentioned commits too closely, that > "proper fix" refers to the pointer becoming invalid. This fix is > only meant to avoid bugs of the same kind in the future. Enrico's > "one-liner" does nothing about it. It is not in stable because nobody > is asking to backport it, because it would be useless there. Then this > fix for a problem B is supposed to be somehow related to the qualities > of a solution to problem A in stable, and if he is serious then I have > to admit that then his argument escapes me.
I am confused now. You make a convoluted patch justifying it by saying that it was done in view of a proper fix. The simpler one-liner has the same effect and actually would not be possible if the proper fix was in place. Given that it is not backported to branch, the simpler fix is preferable. But I am not going to argue further, as I don't seem to be able to follow your logic. > > It would be better if you post your patches to stable for approval > > and comments before committing them. > > > > In fact there was a private exchange with Richard on Friday when I saw > the report, apologies to the list for not being included in the > recipients but I was away without access to my usual git&gmane > configuration, and I wanted to spare people time wasted in a duplicate > fix. But from the discussion it was clear to me that Richard intended to > backport 79a947c9 in case it worked. Hmmm... -- Enrico
