Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > ... (e.g., how should "log" know that a submodule diff might later want > to see the same entry? Should we optimistically free and then make it > easier for the later user to reliably ensure the buffer is primed? Or > should we err on the side of keeping it in place?). My knee-jerk reaction is that we should consider that commit->buffer belongs to the revision traversal machinery. Any other uses bolted on later can borrow it if buffer still exists (I do not think pretty code rewrites the buffer contents in place in any way), or they can ask read_sha1_file() to read it themselves and free when they are done. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html