On Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 10:26:26AM +0100, René Scharfe wrote: > Am 18.01.25 um 18:11 schrieb René Scharfe: > > I think moving to the right place in one step requires less churn. > > On the other hand attribution would be more correct if we stacked your > patches on my v1. Just don't forget to free u.base.name. ;) :) Yes, I actually had prepared them on top of yours yesterday before I saw your email. And I also double checked that you found the leak in my original. (I don't usually leak check explicitly, but wait for CI to do it, and I only run that when I do my daily integration). I hadn't gotten around to writing commit messages, though. So I think we should go with what the v2 you posted, as it is already done. For attribution, I am happy enough with a Helped-by trailer. :) I also like how you pulled the final cleanup into patch 3. It's probably reasonable to do, as the code is not doing anything useful. The only thing we lose is that the original had found all of the spots that needed to call _clear(), so if we later need it again we'd have to do so again. But maybe that hypothetical author would find the commit in the history. Actually, ls-remote does not appear to have called it. I didn't check but presumably "ls-remote --format=%(is-base:foo)" leaked. -Peff
