Re: [PATCHv5 1/2] clone: respect additional configured fetch refspecs during initial fetch

Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:

I'd still prefer this to have:

  if (!remote->fetch && remote->fetch_refspec_nr)
	BUG("attempt to add refspec to uninitialized list");

at the top, as otherwise this case writes garbage into remote->fetch[0].

I see you have another series dealing with the lazy parsing, but I
haven't looked at it yet (hopefully this danger would just go away after
that).

Other than that, the patch looks fine to me.

SZEDER?  As long as the end result together with two series are
safe, I do not have a strong preference, but given that the other
one is a lot more invasive change [*1*], I think it is nicer to have
this two-patch series already safe without the other one.

What's your take on Peff's point?


[Footnote]

*1* Especially the other branch does not merge cleanly into 'pu' and
    I haven't managed to include it in my tree yet.