From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DE481F852 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2022 22:18:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230379AbiANWSQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Jan 2022 17:18:16 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:56313 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230330AbiANWSQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Jan 2022 17:18:16 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49FCB167F3E; Fri, 14 Jan 2022 17:18:16 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; 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=0ZGzw00W+Lac 9byqorxyNy9ohKMVj/zzp9AlwM1uPFI=; b=r3h63Hk44zE0puo1BqUvCc7tb4lm kWBRpWCEIgkRwuV7YM3VsTqkHl+4rFT7Bt4VGq5Cz6zT0JRCkiQBPAItvC7RrOlA t6uGMXaj1S0FXaVnzTb4p4OpGv/X11CU6n8L4nOTUrK5VldvmA5L/dpzwXCe2te9 1+MdZpO9qTk/WHs= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42FAC167F3D; Fri, 14 Jan 2022 17:18:16 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.133.2.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 99675167F38; Fri, 14 Jan 2022 17:18:13 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Elijah Newren Cc: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , Git Mailing List Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jan 2022, #03; Thu, 13) References: Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2022 14:18:12 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Fri, 14 Jan 2022 14:03:28 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: DD5B1CBA-7587-11EC-96D3-C85A9F429DF0-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano writes: > Elijah Newren writes: > >> In contrast, if we leave the leak-checker failing and the failing job >> spreads to next and master,... In any case, I think =C3=86var identified an offending topic, so I kicked it out from 'seen'. If it makes the leak-checker job pass, that would be a much better outcome than anything else we have been discussing on this thread so far, and we'd hopefully set a good precedent to follow. (1) if your change adds a new leak, you'll not hit 'next', (2) as an exception, if new test added by you use a tool that wasn't used in it, and if the test is known to be leaky, it is OK to mark the test leak-checker-unclean. Let's see how well the rest of the topics do.