Re: What's cooking in git.git (Sep 2025, #09; Mon, 22)

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Sep 23, 2025, 03:19 UTC
Message-ID: <20250923031942.GA1484@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqldm6qehe.fsf@gitster.g>

On Mon, Sep 22, 2025 at 04:01:01PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines

> * jk/setup-revisions-freefix (2025-09-19) 6 commits
>   (merged to 'next' on 2025-09-22 at b178f27e6d)
>  + revision: retain argv NULL invariant in setup_revisions()
>  + treewide: pass strvecs around for setup_revisions_from_strvec()
>  + treewide: use setup_revisions_from_strvec() when we have a strvec
>  + revision: add wrapper to setup_revisions() from a strvec
>  + revision: manage memory ownership of argv in setup_revisions()
>  + stash: tell setup_revisions() to free our allocated strings
> 
>  There are double frees and leaks around setup_revisions() API used
>  in "git stash show", which has been fixed, and setup_revisions()
>  API gained a wrapper to make it more ergonomic when using it with
>  strvec-manged argc/argv pairs.
> 
>  Expecting a reroll to fix t3903
>  cf. <xmqq1pnywkwv.fsf@gitster.g>
>  source: <20250919223351.GA3906184@coredump.intra.peff.net>

Hmm, I was surprised to see this merged to next, especially with the comment at the bottom here. I think what you have queued on the topic has the extra prereq that we discussed, but it looks like 'next' has the older version with the bad test.

Was this merged accidentally? If so, I think reverting and merging the re-rolled topic that you already have would be the best thing (I _think_ you won't get caught by a faulty merge base when trying to merge again, because the change was in the first commit, so they're all rewritten in the updated version).

-Peff