Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] reftable: write correct max_update_index to header

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2025 10:11:37 -0800

Karthik Nayak <[email-masked]> 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.