On 22 May 2018 at 04:54, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Hmph, this unfortunately depends on 'next', which means we cannot
merge it down to 'maint' later to fix these leaks.  I guess it is
not a huge deal, though.  We've lived with these message leaks for
quite some time now and earth still kept rotating ;-)

Oh, what was I thinking.  This, just like its previous rounds, is on
top of bp/merge-rename-config^0 and it is expected *not* to be
mergeable to 'maint' (or 'master', for that matter, at least not
yet).

Right. The reason it depends on that topic is the user in
merge-recursive.c. Other than patch 2 and a small part of patch 4, this
should be mergeable to 'master' (as I recall) and probably also to
'maint'. I suppose this series could have been done as three patches to
fix all users except one, then one or two patches to fix
merge-recursive.c.

That would have allowed merging the first part of the series to 'maint'.
(Maybe not to fix the leaking as such, but to keep 'maint' more up to
date with 'master' for easier merging of other topics?) If you'd prefer
an ordering like that (now and/or in the future), just let me know.

Martin