Mike Hommey <m...@glandium.org> writes: >> Does that mean the original code was doing a release that was >> unnecessary? Or does it mean this patch changes what happens on >> that codepath, namely (1) leaking resource, and/or (2) keeping a >> tree of the original 'b' that does not have anything to do with the >> tree of 's', preventing the later lazy-load code from reading the >> tree of 's' and instead of building on top of a wrong tree content? > > I guess the question is whether branch_tree.tree can be in a state that > doesn't match that of branch_tree.versions[1].sha1. If not, then if s > and b have the same branch_tree.versions[1].sha1 for some reason, then > keeping the old branch_tree.tree makes no practical difference from > resetting it. Except it skips the busy-work.
Perhaps my comment was misleading. I _think_ the state at the end of this function (i.e. the latter hunk you added to the function makes the above issue I raised go away). It just made me feel uneasy to leave branch_tree.tree and branch_tree.versions[] in an inconsistent state inside this function, while it calls a few helper functions (hence my comment on the fact that they do not seem to be affected by this inconsistency). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
