Martin Ågren <martin.agren@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Since v1 [1], I've added a preparatory patch to UNLEAK some variables.
> That sets the stage slightly better for patch 2.
>
> Junio, you placed v1 on maint. Because UNLEAK is not in maint, this is
> based on master and maint misses out on this v2. If you have any advice
> for how I should (not) do series with UNLEAK in them, I'm all ears.
As far as we know, nobody reported that these leaks made Git run out
of memory while running merge-base and prevented them from getting
desired result, so it is not worth the effort to make (part of) them
mergeable to 'maint'. I forked the branch from 'maint' only because
it was a fix and it was not harder than forking from 'master'.
If 2/2 (which was 1/1 in the v1) were fixes to a very grave error,
then I might have suggested to do the 2/2 on maint first and call
that topic ${some_grave_error}_fix-maint; then fork another topic
${some_grave_error}_fix at master, merge the _fix-maint topic in,
and then do the 1/2 on top.
