On Thu, 2017-04-13 at 12:08 -0600, Martin Fick wrote: > On Thursday, April 13, 2017 11:03:14 AM Jacob Keller wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 10:31 AM, David Turner > > <novalis@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Git gc locks the repository (using a gc.pid file) so > > > that other gcs don't run concurrently. But git repack > > > doesn't respect this lock, so it's possible to have a > > > repack running at the same time as a gc. This makes > > > the gc sad when its packs are deleted out from under it > > > with: "fatal: ./objects/pack/pack-$sha.pack cannot be > > > accessed". Then it dies, leaving a large temp file > > > hanging around. > > > > > > Does the following seem reasonable? > > > > > > 1. Make git repack, by default, check for a gc.pid file > > > (using the same logic as git gc itself does). > > > 2. Provide a --force option to git repack to ignore said > > > check. 3. Make git gc provide that --force option when > > > it calls repack under its own lock. > > > > What about just making the code that calls repack today > > just call gc instead? I guess it's more work if you don't > > strictly need it but..? > > There are many scanerios where this does not achieve the > same thing. On the obvious side, gc does more than > repacking, but on the other side, repacking has many > switches that are not available via gc. > > Would it make more sense to move the lock to repack instead > of to gc? Other gc operations might step on each other too (e.g. packing refs). That would be less bad (and less common), but it still seems worth avoiding.