From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2024 22:35:02 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] pack-objects: create new name-hash algorithm
Message-ID: <20241004223502.GA580885@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqiku7d0ut.fsf@gitster.g>

On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 02:17:30PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> > Derrick Stolee (6):
> >   pack-objects: add --full-name-hash option
> >   repack: test --full-name-hash option
> >   pack-objects: add GIT_TEST_FULL_NAME_HASH
> >   git-repack: update usage to match docs
> >   p5313: add size comparison test
> >   test-tool: add helper for name-hash values
> 
> Recent CI jobs on 'seen' has been failing the leak-check jobs, e.g.
> 
>   https://github.com/git/git/actions/runs/11184876759/job/31096601111#step:4:1886
> 
> shows that t5310 and t5334 are having problems.
> 
> I randomly picked this topic and ejected it out of 'seen', and the
> result is fairing a bit better. t5310 that failed 228/228 subtests
> in the above run is now passing.  I didn't run this topic alone
> under the leak checker, so it is entirely possible that there are
> some unfortunate interactions with other topics in flight.

Maybe squash this into the final patch of that series?

diff --git a/t/helper/test-name-hash.c b/t/helper/test-name-hash.c
index 15fb8f853c..e4ecd159b7 100644
--- a/t/helper/test-name-hash.c
+++ b/t/helper/test-name-hash.c
@@ -19,5 +19,6 @@ int cmd__name_hash(int argc UNUSED, const char **argv UNUSED)
 		printf("%10"PRIu32"\t%10"PRIu32"\t%s\n", name_hash, full_hash, line.buf);
 	}
 
+	strbuf_release(&line);
 	return 0;
 }

That seems to be enough to clear t5310 on "seen". It was not noticed in
the original topic because t5310 was not yet marked as leak-free in its
base. That happened in fa016423c7 (revision: fix leaking parents when
simplifying commits, 2024-09-26)

-Peff