Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > While this patch was merged to next, Dscho reported that it was flaky > on macos pipeline. On further investigation I found this was easily > reproducible when the leak sanitizer was turned on and the reftable > tests were run. The fix was simply to add the missing 0 initialization. If it is already _in_ 'next', please turn it into a relative patch on top of it, instead of replacing it. That will give you an opportunity to describe the breakage in the original version, which everybody missed until it hit 'next'. And you can also credit the folks who reported the breakage, and describe the fix. The reason we do not revert out of 'next' lightly is because the changes we merge to 'next' are supposed to be reviewed well enough, which means that any bug we discover later is likely to have been caused by mistakes any of us may repeat in the future, and it is worth documenting in our history. It is quite a different review philosophy if you compare the rules we use for patches that haven't hit 'next'. These uncooked patches may have mistrakes that reviewers can easily spot and get corrected, and these easy ones are not worth documenting as much. > The patch is based on Maint f93ff170b9 (Git 2.48.1, 2025-01-13). Thanks.
