On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 07:02:52PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> I think you could make an argument either way:
>
> - we have an existing bitmap for free, and bitmaps make things faster,
> so why not keep it?
>
> - the user did not ask for bitmaps, so we should make the outcome
> consistent whether a pack of the exact name existed before or not
>
> The second one seems less surprising to me. But I think if we did the
> first, the code would be shorter (it would not need any of this "keep
> track of what pack-objects generated" stuff at all, but would just copy
> whatever files we see into place).
I think that the second one is _far_ less surprising to me, so I'd
prefer that we did that instead of keeping the .bitmap from the last run
regardless of whether or not the user asked for it.
> > > if (rename(fname_old, fname))
> > > die_errno(_("renaming '%s' failed"), fname_old);
> >
> > OK, so this is where the previous step matters. We do the same as
> > before (i.e. stat+chmod and rename) only for paths we have created.
> >
> > We don't reuse the old one because we have already written a new
> > file so we won't save anything by doing so, and checking if the
> > target of rename exists already before deciding not to rename cannot
> > be made atomic, so just relying on rename() to do the right thing is
> > a good idea anyway.
>
> Even though the pack is byte-for-byte identical, the new .idx, etc,
> might not be. And those could be affected by options. E.g.:
>
> git -c pack.writeBitmapHashCache=false repack -adb
> git -c pack.writeBitmapHashCache=true repack -adb
>
> should probably end up with a bitmap file that contains a hash cache.
Agreed completely.
> -Peff
Thanks,
Taylor
