On 2014-02-05 02.16, Jeff King wrote:
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 03:40:15PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
* Somehow this came to my private mailbox without Cc to list, so I
am forwarding it.
I think with 1190a1ac (pack-objects: name pack files after
trailer hash, 2013-12-05),
... and this is the other half that is supposed to be only about
renaming variables.
-- 8 --
From: Torsten Bögershausen tbo...@web.de
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2014 16:09:56 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] repack.c: rename a few variables
Rename the variables to match what they are used for: fname for the
final
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 12:06:41PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Actually, since 1190a1ac, if you have repacked and gotten the same pack
name, then you do not have to do any rename dance at all; you can throw
away what you just generated because you know that it is byte-for-byte
identical.
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
The minimal fix you posted below does make sense to me as a stopgap, and
we can look into dropping the code entirely during the next cycle. It
would be nice to have a test to cover this case, though.
Sounds sensible. Run repack -a -d once, and then another
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 03:40:15PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
* Somehow this came to my private mailbox without Cc to list, so I
am forwarding it.
I think with 1190a1ac (pack-objects: name pack files after
trailer hash, 2013-12-05), repacking
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 12:31:34PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
The minimal fix you posted below does make sense to me as a stopgap, and
we can look into dropping the code entirely during the next cycle. It
would be nice to have a test to cover this case,
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 03:37:40PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
Sounds sensible. Run repack -a -d once, and then another while
forcing it to be single threaded, or something?
Certainly that's the way to trigger the code, but doing this:
[...]
...does not seem to fail, and it does not seem to
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 12:31:34PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
The minimal fix you posted below does make sense to me as a stopgap, and
we can look into dropping the code entirely during the next cycle. It
would be nice
On 2014-02-05 21.31, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
The minimal fix you posted below does make sense to me as a stopgap, and
we can look into dropping the code entirely during the next cycle. It
would be nice to have a test to cover this case, though.
Sounds
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 12:57:14PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
...does not seem to fail, and it does not seem to leave any cruft in
place. So maybe I am misunderstanding the thing the patch is meant to
fix. Is it that we simply do not replace the pack in this instance?
Yes. Not just
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
... So the fact that this
bug exists doesn't really produce any user-visible behavior, and
hopefully post-release we would drop the code entirely, and the test
would have no reason to exist.
Heh, thanks, and I agree with the reasoning for the longer-term
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 01:08:36PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
... So the fact that this
bug exists doesn't really produce any user-visible behavior, and
hopefully post-release we would drop the code entirely, and the test
would have no reason to exist.
This comment in builtin/repack.c:
First see if there are packs of the same name and if so
if we can move them out of the way (this can happen if we
repacked immediately after packing fully).
When a repo was fully repacked, and is repacked again, we may run
into the situation that new
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
This comment in builtin/repack.c:
...
Oops; there was supposed to be these lines before anythning else:
From: Torsten Bögershausen tbo...@web.de
Date: Sun Feb 2 16:09:56 2014 +0100
First see if there are packs of the same name and
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 03:40:15PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
* Somehow this came to my private mailbox without Cc to list, so I
am forwarding it.
I think with 1190a1ac (pack-objects: name pack files after
trailer hash, 2013-12-05), repacking the same set of objects may
have
15 matches
Mail list logo
