Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > The below patch fails tests, it's just a quick (and obviously flawed) > search/replacement that I hacked up to get the removal of these from > revision.h to compile, which shows that it's just something between > log.c and log-tree.c, pretty much. Given that the way most end-users see log-tree.c in action is via log.c (is there a useful entry point into log-tree that bypasses log.c that implements end-user actions?), I would actually think it is that extra_headers is quite an integral part of rev_info structure, which is how the revision traversal API passes information relevant to the current traversal around various layors of the implementation. So, I am not sure what the above experiment shows us. > Anyway, while I'm 100% in agreement with you that this *should* be fixed > I'd really like to do the bare minimum to address leaks in this initial > iteration. > > I.e. you're right that this relatively fragile, and I'm also concern > about catching memory errors. As long as we know there are yet more work to do (are we leaving NEEDSWORK comments as we go, by the way?), I think that's fine. We cannot go all the way in one go for a large code base like revisions API, and we can leave a small corner "not quite optimial", and we can even leave it in "sometimes still leaks" status, as long as we never make anything to free too much by mistake.
