On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Jeff King <p...@peff.net> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 11:20:59AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote: > >> I wonder if the patch you sent in: >> >> https://public-inbox.org/git/20160816144642.5ikkta4l5hyx6...@sigill.intra.peff.net/ >> >> is still useful or not. > > It is potentially still useful for other code paths besides > receive-pack. But if the main concern is pushes, then yeah, I think it > is not really doing anything. > >> I guess if we fail the receive-pack because the pack is bigger than >> receive.maxInputSize, then the "quarantine" directory will also be >> removed, so the part of the pack that we received before failing the >> receive-pack will be deleted. > > Correct. _Any_ failure up to the tmp_objdir_migrate() call will drop the > objects. So that includes index-pack failing for any reason.
Great, thanks for explaining! >> > These two patches set that up by letting index-pack and pre-receive >> > know that quarantine path and use it to store arbitrary files that >> > _don't_ get migrated to the main object database (i.e., the log file >> > mentioned above). >> >> It would be nice to have a diffstat for the whole series. > > You mean in the cover letter? I do not mind including it if people find > them useful, but I personally have always just found them to be clutter > at that level. I think it can help to quickly get an idea about what the series impacts, and it would have made it easier for me to see that the changes in the patch you sent previously (https://public-inbox.org/git/20160816144642.5ikkta4l5hyx6...@sigill.intra.peff.net/) are not part of this series. Thanks anyway, Christian.
