Elijah Newren [off-list ref] writes:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 10:35 AM Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
...
Even though I wanted to merge the en/ort-directory-rename down to
'next' yesterday, it has just got updated and I had to rebase the
ort-perf branch using the material from the old thread, so neither
is in 'next' as of now.
...
reports, it's kinda important to get it right. So...
* I'm not touching en/ort-directory-rename; I still think it is ready
for merging to next.
By "not touching", do you mean you now want me to discard the latest
round that is on en/ort-directory-rename and revert the topic to the
previous version?
On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 11:03 PM Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
Elijah Newren [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 10:35 AM Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
...
Even though I wanted to merge the en/ort-directory-rename down to
'next' yesterday, it has just got updated and I had to rebase the
ort-perf branch using the material from the old thread, so neither
is in 'next' as of now.
...
reports, it's kinda important to get it right. So...
* I'm not touching en/ort-directory-rename; I still think it is ready
for merging to next.
By "not touching", do you mean you now want me to discard the latest
round that is on en/ort-directory-rename and revert the topic to the
previous version?
No! Sorry, I meant that en/ort-directory-rename is fine as-is. Do
not revert it. I think it is good to merge down to next and master.
(The memory leak I found was not from that series, but from another
series that pre-dated it; in particular, one of the ones that has
already merged to master.)
The only thing changing here is en/merge-ort-perf; I'm modifying the
existing patch slightly (mostly the commit message) but also adding
two new patches, one of which fixes the big memory leak.