On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 02:26:19AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 08:39:40PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote:
>
> > > >> * tb/repack-clearing-midx (2020-08-26) 1 commit
> > > >> (merged to 'next' on 2020-08-27 at a465875cbb)
> > > >> + builtin/repack.c: invalidate MIDX only when necessary
> > [...]
> > Thanks indeed. I started looking into this tonight thinking that it'd be
> > an easy fix, but I think there is a deeper bug that is worth
> > investigating further.
>
> I imagine this is part of it:
>
> diff --git a/builtin/repack.c b/builtin/repack.c
> index f10f52779c..2cc05f968a 100644
> --- a/builtin/repack.c
> +++ b/builtin/repack.c
> @@ -134,7 +134,7 @@ static void remove_redundant_pack(const char *dir_name, const char *base_name)
> {
> struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
> struct multi_pack_index *m = get_multi_pack_index(the_repository);
> - strbuf_addf(&buf, "%s.pack", base_name);
> + strbuf_addf(&buf, "%s.idx", base_name);
> if (m && midx_contains_pack(m, buf.buf))
> clear_midx_file(the_repository);
> strbuf_insertf(&buf, 0, "%s/", dir_name);
>
> but maybe that is just the "easy" part you meant. Several tests still
> seem to fail, which I guess is the "deeper" part. :)
>
> If I'm understanding midx_contains_pack() correctly, then the code
> looking for ".pack" could never have matched, and we would never have
> deleted a midx here. Which makes me wonder why the "repack removes
> multi-pack-index when deleting packs" test ever succeeded.
Sorry, this is all nonsense.
I forgot about the hackery added in 013fd7ada3 (midx: check both pack
and index names for containment, 2019-04-05). And anyway, the patch
above is totally bogus because we need the ".pack" form in the buffer
when we call unlink_pack_path().
So there's definitely something more odd going on in that failing test.
-Peff
