On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > If this issue was present before you started touching the affected code, > it should come much earlier in the series than [10/13]. If on the other > hand this was introduced by earlier one in the series, the patch that > introduced the bug should be corrected in place in the sequence without > this patch. This issue existed before, but the other callers of match_heads() only call it once before the process terminates, and don't bother to free what it returns. So those callers didn't notice. This topic introduces the first caller that calls match_heads() repeatedly, so it frees the returned ref list after it has copied out what it needs. The change is independent and can be moved anywhere in the series, or even introduced as a patch independent of the series itself. Which would you prefer? (Actually, would you mind just applying it how you see fit?) j. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
