On Thu, Sep 16 2021, Taylor Blau wrote: > On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 07:35:59AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >> So I think this patch can be dropped from this series, since it's exact >> duplicate of my 48f68715b14 (tr2: stop leaking "thread_name" memory, >> 2021-08-27) in ab/tr2-leaks-and-fixes, currently in "next" and marked >> for a merge with master. > > I agree it can be dropped. > >> When submitting a series that depends on another one it's best to rebase >> it on top of it & indicate it as such in the cover letter, Junio can >> queue such a series on top of another one. >> >> In this case I'm still not sure why this fix is here, i.e. surely >> nothing later in the series absolutely needs this stray memory leak >> fix... > > But there's no need for Jeff to depend on your branch, since (as you > mentioned) this cleanup isn't relevant for anything else in this series, > which is a sort of grab-bag of miscellaneous clean-ups. Indeed, to be clear it was just general advice about queue-on-top. But to clarify what I was getting at here: If we just came up with the same diff I'd have assumed Jeff just hadn't need the change in "next", but since he clearly has I was confused by it being here. I.e. it doesn't *seem* like anything in the rest of the series depends on it, so why have it here at all since the bug is being fixed anyway? Or if it does depend on it in some subtle way I've missed, perhaps it does need to be queued on top of ab/tr2-leaks-and-fixes, and the relevant commit/subtle dependency needs to be called out in a commit message. Or maybe Jeff had just come up with this independently, noticed it just before submission and just updated the CL, not the patch or series itself :)
