From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-b1-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-b1-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18DCF1E884 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:11:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.152 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1737655902; cv=none; b=H6AUw1IfTVdZgygyZem7u2guFiRllgs7k7sm+S5SPzdvc4rftYzNeg0qI3eG/6RNw0URzsTrUe4UPcUE5kafWTXuCrIthUjJe3HqkXybUwMHi+6f2ry4dvbb4rH0o5QQKQc4JCJHxN9uS5UFs3ZWel9gThJa1c1i7QCNfL/1B4E= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1737655902; c=relaxed/simple; bh=18Kl2qW3PC/0dCLgMxtG3Nkjw55hMdF4jHh0LEzEv+k=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=nYQqHtCL1AMqawRU2v7VlVqW+BVeEhwNcVvkELXZSJE1XNVM5LeUvflExymwnF2h60eCeFky3AhYtqy6tRB3CdcLlHuw9cZbG7vwnAX1ryxUEAUsko/kwEF9/PSBRBOtB/moXbUAG38JTqQmNKCDf+s0BRnf7iMdcWrYnqpwKFU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=GR08oFi3; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=cQ/9j9Qn; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.152 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="GR08oFi3"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="cQ/9j9Qn" Received: from phl-compute-07.internal (phl-compute-07.phl.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailfhigh.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF410254008B; Thu, 23 Jan 2025 13:11:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from phl-frontend-01 ([10.202.2.160]) by phl-compute-07.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 23 Jan 2025 13:11:40 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1737655899; x=1737742299; bh=CfZBlxKhKv bG/dNG+vsNct0QNx2EyLPhEOg9hXcEQjg=; b=GR08oFi31yk9BhrGNAijOrWx8h hn8qmMmx/RtYjoIUQ4ZRnhuGsG/SttjgD8QhDLc1wh4W4iGsUrPQbIy4rdQVEpGy 3OOQ2CJyyxZAgmD56T5ri+dnjGZJfuLg2h2SRODzDQ1Y77YTIUzS/Metq8DgbgBA WepCOPijYFUVC3eCHjq5t/et4iaqB/uxW7BupxIAhOcyIf6KKs355ZN9IG/Fqxcf L0wa1Sm/NqYi5V24FA0F7oBI6YNk5m6yBV3dOSSwhG1F14eCmKaA3sM0oXUZyPfM IbUwjpJoZqUVsz++r5/Jum1jOr0OcPHiUPXq7Yz065hYxK58Etof/qT3IRBA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1737655899; x=1737742299; bh=CfZBlxKhKvbG/dNG+vsNct0QNx2EyLPhEOg 9hXcEQjg=; b=cQ/9j9Qn527cMNZwMC48eKbVsFgy609ZE0KO+y7/3/dZ1XSHJ4p FO0vyIq6g9vYiRnsuPZkA/DFh6LWLkxf+hj2601Cv07789GuMvGWfCicxccFaXIy StDEOcox0wIwgevWDrKmNKkzF9ph2tUMcRz82aZARMYOf/zTW87MGTkyv1sE0CF1 ReUccvVclBC4IM66+2gJrKUqmZ6yk1E+8JxTQL0RaQmtQMKK0D4mE4qPS+ARtkZK jjlxynkshyRGh6DWGo5XOjZhYZ5/tUDba9EW6nCg9U6h5mw470mZ58gjTVBkUWFB 2kSMcAw20evi56noaXg/PLa/ZLwz6iRS7gg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefuddrudejgedgvdefgecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpggftfghnshhusghstghrihgsvgdp uffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivg hnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpefhvfevufgjfhffkfgfgggtsehttdertddtredt necuhfhrohhmpefluhhnihhoucevucfjrghmrghnohcuoehgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsoh igrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeefveetteejheeugeffledvteeiveffueef jeelueffteeigffgfedthfefieegieenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrh grmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhmpdhnsggprhgt phhtthhopeeipdhmohguvgepshhmthhpohhuthdprhgtphhtthhopehkrghrthhhihhkrd dukeeksehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithesvhhgvghrrdhkvghrnhgv lhdrohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopehpshesphhkshdrihhmpdhrtghpthhtohepshgrnhgurg hlshestghruhhsthihthhoohhthhhprghsthgvrdhnvghtpdhrtghpthhtohepjhhohhgr nhhnvghsrdhstghhihhnuggvlhhinhesghhmgidruggvpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithhsth gvrhesphhosghogidrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 23 Jan 2025 13:11:39 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Karthik Nayak Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, ps@pks.im, sandals@crustytoothpaste.net, Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] reftable: write correct max_update_index to header In-Reply-To: <20250123135613.748916-1-karthik.188@gmail.com> (Karthik Nayak's message of "Thu, 23 Jan 2025 14:56:13 +0100") References: <20250123135613.748916-1-karthik.188@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2025 10:11:37 -0800 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Karthik Nayak writes: > While this patch was merged to next, Dscho reported that it was flaky > on macos pipeline. On further investigation I found this was easily > reproducible when the leak sanitizer was turned on and the reftable > tests were run. The fix was simply to add the missing 0 initialization. If it is already _in_ 'next', please turn it into a relative patch on top of it, instead of replacing it. That will give you an opportunity to describe the breakage in the original version, which everybody missed until it hit 'next'. And you can also credit the folks who reported the breakage, and describe the fix. The reason we do not revert out of 'next' lightly is because the changes we merge to 'next' are supposed to be reviewed well enough, which means that any bug we discover later is likely to have been caused by mistakes any of us may repeat in the future, and it is worth documenting in our history. It is quite a different review philosophy if you compare the rules we use for patches that haven't hit 'next'. These uncooked patches may have mistrakes that reviewers can easily spot and get corrected, and these easy ones are not worth documenting as much. > The patch is based on Maint f93ff170b9 (Git 2.48.1, 2025-01-13). Thanks.