)]}'
{
  "commit": "1a211cb369dc865a4e7e9f58a100c041af457262",
  "tree": "2f9bc481464ea27c46a0389134ee2e31df7e9c7a",
  "parents": [
    "ec98d90767b341877fb7f1547f025b946955899a"
  ],
  "author": {
    "name": "Paul Jakma",
    "email": "paul@opensourcerouting.org",
    "time": "Sat Nov 01 17:21:47 2014 +0000"
  },
  "committer": {
    "name": "Paul Jakma",
    "email": "paul@quagga.net",
    "time": "Tue Nov 25 15:57:12 2014 +0000"
  },
  "message": "bgpd: one more fix for tightening of check for missing well-known attributes\n\n* bgp_attr.c: (bgp_attr_check) The check for missing NEXT_HOP has the right\n  spirit, but wrong where it counts, on the logic.  It wouldn\u0027t catch a\n  missing NEXT_HOP on a v4-only UPDATE.  It would though have incorrectly\n  flagged next-hop as missing on multi-protocol-only UPDATEs.\n\n  Caught by Martin Winter with a test-suite.\n",
  "tree_diff": [
    {
      "type": "modify",
      "old_id": "da17e82e71dbb79eb60405ef4cd5252ab74902df",
      "old_mode": 33188,
      "old_path": "bgpd/bgp_attr.c",
      "new_id": "5e213db4d6a9a1cf8bbc55eb819dae1d00087442",
      "new_mode": 33188,
      "new_path": "bgpd/bgp_attr.c"
    }
  ]
}