On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 13:26:58 -0500
Jeff King [off-list ref] wrote:

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:19:22AM -0800, Brandon Williams wrote:

quoted

On 02/21, Jonathan Tan wrote:

quoted

On Tue,  6 Feb 2018 17:12:51 -0800
Brandon Williams [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

+extern struct ref **get_remote_refs(int fd_out, struct packet_reader *reader,
+				    struct ref **list, int for_push,
+				    const struct argv_array *ref_patterns);

I haven't looked at the rest of this patch in detail, but the type of
ref_patterns is probably better as struct string_list, since this is not
a true argument array (e.g. with flags starting with --). Same comment
for the next few patches that deal with ref patterns.

Its just a list of strings which don't require having a util pointer
hanging around so actually using an argv_array would be more memory
efficient than a string_list.  But either way I don't think it matters
much.

I agree that it shouldn't matter much here. But if the name argv_array
is standing in the way of using it, I think we should consider giving it
a more general name. I picked that not to evoke "this must be arguments"
but "this is terminated by a single NULL".

In general I think it should be the preferred structure for string
lists, just because it actually converts for free to the "other" common
format (whereas you can never pass string_list.items to a function that
doesn't know about string lists).

This sounds reasonable - I withdraw my comment about using struct
string_list.