Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 31 Oct 2006, Shawn Pearce wrote: > > Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I think this should be solved before rx packs are actually stored as > > > packs though. Otherwise people will end up with unwanted .keep files > > > left around. Maybe having a much bigger default for object number > > > treshold for the time being? (unless this patch is applied to "next" at > > > the same time as another one that actually deals with those .keep > > > files). > > > > Its next on my list of things to do. Hopefully I'll be able to > > implement it today. > > > > I'm thinking of just brute forcing it: put enough identifying data > > into the .keep file to make it unique, then go through every local > > pack and look at their .keep file; if the content matches what > > receive-pack asked index-pack to put there then remove it. > > Ouch. What about the patch below? It covers only the pull/fetch case, > but covering the push case shouldn't be that hard either (simply use a > pipe to read index-pack's stdout and capture the pack name). > > I used "pack" <tab> <sha1> so it is easy to pick out of the list of refs > that usually comes over the stream in the fetch case (if I understood > that part right). I thought about using a pipe too, but in the case of receive-pack it looked like index-pack was sending something back to the push end of the connection. I didn't dig into the code enough to see what that was and how to do the same in receive-pack itself. The brute force approach is horrible but simple. ;-) I'll look at your patch and what I need to do make a pipe work here, because its clearly the better solution. -- Shawn. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html