Re: What's cooking in git.git (Sep 2021, #06; Mon, 20)

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Sep 23, 2021, 17:41 UTC
Message-ID: <YUy8Osh+YJXOmgF/@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <87mto343ze.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 06:51:12PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines

> > Isn't the direction of dependency the other way?  Once fixes go in,
> > checks will no longer complain, but until fixes are reviewed and
> > applied, checking at CI will break the testing and this would need
> > working around by marking various tests as "not ready to be tested".
> 
> The fixes are structured as fixing the code, and then for both
> self-documentation & testing turning on:
> 
>     TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK=true
> 
> In the same commit, I could fix the leaks and have a second series later
> for turning on the regression test, or just turning on the test and
> having it kick in once it's merged with ab/sanitize-leak-ci, but waiting
> until ab/sanitize-leak-ci hit master first seemed less confusing for
> everyone.
> 
> But if you'd like to have 'em now with either of those caveats...

Yeah, I think it's much easier to demonstrate the leak and that it is fixed when we have the infrastructure from that series. So the leaks themselves can obviously be fixed without depending on that series, but it's much easier to review the patches when we have that extra tooling.

-Peff