Hi Junio,
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 3:16 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> writes:
>
>> The replace map for objects was missed to free in the object store in
>> the conversion of 174774cd519 (Merge branch 'sb/object-store-replace',
>> 2018-05-08)
>
>
> Or is this just a simple "the topic that ends at 174774cd519^2 had
> this leak that needs to be fixed by this patch; instead of rerolling
> this is an incremental, because the topic has already been merged to
> 'master' and it is too late now"?
This is the case. I wondered if I want to point to the exact commit
(which I have trouble pointing to as the whole topic has no memory
leak fixes, Closest would be d88f9fdf8b2 (replace-object: move
replace_map to object store, 2018-04-11))
or rather just point at the series. I did not think of the confusion
that might arise there.
> Looking at this patch in the context of the side branch (instead of
> in the merged result) already makes sense to me, so I am guessing it
> is the latter (i.e. not a botched merge that missed semantic
> conflicts), in which case the proposed log message is a bit too
> alarming and points readers in a wrong direction. Shouldn't it
> point at, say, c1274495 ("replace-object: eliminate replace objects
> prepared flag", 2018-04-11) that turned the oidmap instance into a
> pointer in raw_object_store?
Ah, that is the best place to point at. Makes sense.
I'll reroll this,
Thanks,
Stefan
