On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 10:31:06AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > So in addition to the now-populated &pending array, to avoid leaking > the memory related to the one member array we've created. The > &rev.pending was already being object_array_clear()'d by the > release_revisions() added in f6bfea0ad01 (revisions API users: use > release_revisions() in builtin/log.c, 2022-04-13), now we'll also > correctly free the previous data (f6bfea0ad01 noted this memory leak > as an outstanding TODO). I couldn't quite parse the first sentence. But I think this explanation is proceeding along a wrong assumption (which is the same one I had when reviewing v1) that we are leaking the one-member array. I think this paragraph can be replaced with something along the lines of what I mentioned in my other reply. -Peff
