From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 743E820281 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2017 01:12:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751007AbdKFBMn (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Nov 2017 20:12:43 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:50730 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750750AbdKFBMm (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Nov 2017 20:12:42 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5726B386B; Sun, 5 Nov 2017 20:12:41 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=vdBGYMFCtGjI w+58A3++58zzqf4=; b=t751kWo/eeFFbYxED8NoHXdzkiu79lnfNwM/8Hjo1srn xYW18E1LUWl61Bn5L/2o8OiSg5gnk+gMRl+IQ6mLrWXM8fNhs/oeArPpYUbraHy/ e0b8zauQu+JYjklooQkf+C9rzyGwFvf7wwXWTBV3dLjLjJi2/dJECRc/TBzXNo0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=pNR2eu 7+xl1XcOZTdmKUYrFEmRFW1PulUoD4+1Ju2AmPmEGKlWrcxlJk6tq1ocKxNXOf5v OLxTG32DtfQkiqDGXuF4CKRQNu0aHsgu097/KYkFxJfO6R19zji89aRSx8k2yZGA HYhjOKxR2O51CAiVLm3HBt7FKuh5H1HKjyfqE= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCD8CB386A; Sun, 5 Nov 2017 20:12:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3CDA4B3868; Sun, 5 Nov 2017 20:12:41 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Martin =?utf-8?Q?=C3=85gren?= Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Re: reduce_heads: fix memory leaks References: Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2017 10:12:40 +0900 In-Reply-To: ("Martin =?utf-8?Q?=C3=85gren=22's?= message of "Sun, 5 Nov 2017 21:26:29 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 961C25EC-C28F-11E7-8A33-8EF31968708C-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Martin =C3=85gren writes: > Since v1 [1], I've added a preparatory patch to UNLEAK some variables. > That sets the stage slightly better for patch 2. > > Junio, you placed v1 on maint. Because UNLEAK is not in maint, this is > based on master and maint misses out on this v2. If you have any advice > for how I should (not) do series with UNLEAK in them, I'm all ears. As far as we know, nobody reported that these leaks made Git run out of memory while running merge-base and prevented them from getting desired result, so it is not worth the effort to make (part of) them mergeable to 'maint'. I forked the branch from 'maint' only because it was a fix and it was not harder than forking from 'master'. If 2/2 (which was 1/1 in the v1) were fixes to a very grave error, then I might have suggested to do the 2/2 on maint first and call that topic ${some_grave_error}_fix-maint; then fork another topic ${some_grave_error}_fix at master, merge the _fix-maint topic in, and then do the 1/2 on top.