Re: [PATCH 2/2] format-patch: fix leak of rev_info in prepare_bases()

[Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>]

On Wed, Jul 01, 2026 at 04:47:33AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2026 at 10:42:38AM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> 
> > > We already run a special leak job for linux-reftables. Why not turn that
> > > job into "leaks plus reftables plus test-vars"? The only downside would
> > > be potentially hiding leaks found by linux-reftables-leaks if the
> > > test-vars features force us into a difference code path. But looking at
> > > the list, it doesn't seem likely to me. None of them is particularly
> > > ref-related.
> > > 
> > > In fact, I kind of wonder if we could fold linux-reftables into the
> > > test-vars job completely.
> > 
> > linux-reftable or linux-reftable-leaks? I think it would certainly make
> > sense to drop one of these and merge it into linux-TEST-vars. The
> > linux-reftable job doesn't provide any benefit over its -leak variant,
> > so that would be the candidate I'd personally merge.
> 
> Both. Fold linux-reftable into linux-TEST-vars, and then drop
> linux-reftable-leaks in favor of a new linux-TEST-vars-leaks.

Hm, okay. I guess that should be fine. Do we also want to do a similar
thing for macOS and create a macos-TEST-vars job that exercises all of
this?

Also, while at it... I really think that job name is just plain awful.
While at it, we might rename it to something more sensible like
"linux-changed-defaults".

Patrick