From: Junio C Hamano Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 01:11:28 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/24] revision.[ch]: provide and start using a release_revisions() Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <220310.864k46lk7x.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes: > So I'd prefer to keep this part of the general structure as-is, > i.e. even if we do nothing with "diffopt" *yet* we can assert ... Please don't. It will become hard to tell during the patch progression if "we can do so even though we do not need to do so *yet*" is correct (e.g. diffopt---which does not have a separate allocation to be released), or if "pretending that the field is cleared by _release() function is premature and will lead to a new leak" (e.g. if you lost separate clearing of .prune_data at this step, that would be an incorrect change because it does hold on to an allocated resource).