On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 12:58:53AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > I haven't looked closely at this whole patch yet (and I especially want > to look at the new tests since this approach covers more cases), but I > did notice that this version of the function still has the "we don't > reap the child on parse failure" problem I described in: > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/20230505221921.GE3321533@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Hmmph. I could have sworn that I remember including that feedback in the new round, but I must have dropped it on the floor somewhere. Thanks for pointing it out, I'm 99% sure that it'll be in the next round ;-). Thanks, Taylor
