Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 6:13 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> "Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > Philippe Blain found and reported a couple issues with the output of >> > --remerge-diff[1]. After digging in, I think one of them actually counts as >> > two separate issues, so here's a series with three patches to fix these >> > issues. Each includes testcases to keep us from regressing. >> >> Including this to 'seen' seems to break the leaks-check CI job X-<. >> >> https://github.com/git/git/runs/8124648321?check_suite_focus=true > > That's...surprising. Any chance of a mis-merge? > > I ask for two reasons: > * This series, built on main, passed the leaks-check job. Ah, that. Yes, I did rebase it to 'maint' to be nice to our users as this is not a new feature development but a bugfix or two. This is why I hate the leak-check CI job (yes, I do help maintain all parts of the tree, but it does not mean I have to love every bit of the codebase, and this is one of the things I love to hate). Instead of saying "subcommand X with feature Y? It ought to be clean so complain if leak checker find something. subcommand Z? It is known to be unclean, so do not bother", it says "In this test in entirety, we currently happen to use only the ones that are clean" and penalizes developers who wants to use an unclean tool merely for checking. The approach is fundamentally flawed and does not play well with multiple integration branches, just like we saw here.
