On 22 May 2018 at 04:54, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes:
>> Hmph, this unfortunately depends on 'next', which means we cannot >> merge it down to 'maint' later to fix these leaks. I guess it is >> not a huge deal, though. We've lived with these message leaks for >> quite some time now and earth still kept rotating ;-) > > Oh, what was I thinking. This, just like its previous rounds, is on > top of bp/merge-rename-config^0 and it is expected *not* to be > mergeable to 'maint' (or 'master', for that matter, at least not > yet). Right. The reason it depends on that topic is the user in merge-recursive.c. Other than patch 2 and a small part of patch 4, this should be mergeable to 'master' (as I recall) and probably also to 'maint'. I suppose this series could have been done as three patches to fix all users except one, then one or two patches to fix merge-recursive.c. That would have allowed merging the first part of the series to 'maint'. (Maybe not to fix the leaking as such, but to keep 'maint' more up to date with 'master' for easier merging of other topics?) If you'd prefer an ordering like that (now and/or in the future), just let me know. Martin
