On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:24 PM, Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 04/20, Christian Couder wrote: >>> >>> Could you try with the following patch: >>> >>> http://public-inbox.org/git/20170330210354.20018-1-chriscool@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >> >> Yeah, I tried with and without that patch with the same result. >> Unless I'm screwing something up when testing I don't think this fixes >> the issue unfortunately. > > I just tried on "pu" and only the first test > (t7009-filter-branch-null-sha1.sh) fails there. I bisected this test's failure (when using GIT_TEST_SPLIT_INDEX=YesPlease) to e6a1dd77e1 (read-cache: regenerate shared index if necessary, 2017-02-27). The failing test is the following: test_expect_success 'filter commands are still checked' ' test_must_fail git filter-branch \ --force --prune-empty \ --index-filter "git rm --cached --ignore-unmatch three.t" ' And if I add the following at the beginning of the test: git config splitIndex.maxPercentChange 100 && the test then passes. So It looks like in split index mode the test doesn't expect the shared index to be regenerated. Maybe Peff, as he is the author of this test, or Duy have an idea about this?