On 6/18/2025 4:20 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> We initialize branch->merge with set_merge() which is called by >>> branch_get() and which is the only way for callers external to remote.c >>> of getting a branch structure. >>> >>> The issue is that merge_nr can be non-zero because if no caller has done >>> a branch_get() on the given branch, we still have merge_nr is non-zero >>> and merge is NULL. >> >> Meaning merge_nr and merge are both uninitialized and unlikely to be >> 0 and NULL? What values do they have, and if they are left >> uninitialized, shouldn't we be initializing them to predictable >> values? > > Ah, no, I was just being stupid. > > We read configuration files and accumulate things in .merge_name[] > while incrementing .merge_nr but until set_merge() is called, .merge > is NULL. We need to clear .merge[] only when it is not NULL, of > course. And for that, it may be more readable if we had two loops. > > Thanks. > > > Right. I think I like my solution of just eliminating merge_names entirely. Unfortunately it looks like my mailer marked that content as quoted when I pasted it in as an inline diff.
