On Mon, Apr 19 2021, Han-Wen Nienhuys via GitGitGadget wrote:
> From: Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Signed-off-by: Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> t/t7900-maintenance.sh | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/t/t7900-maintenance.sh b/t/t7900-maintenance.sh
> index 2412d8c5c006..6f2f55a6c51d 100755
> --- a/t/t7900-maintenance.sh
> +++ b/t/t7900-maintenance.sh
> @@ -343,7 +343,7 @@ test_expect_success 'maintenance.incremental-repack.auto' '
> test_subcommand git multi-pack-index write --no-progress <trace-B
> '
>
> -test_expect_success 'pack-refs task' '
> +test_expect_success REFFILES 'pack-refs task' '
> for n in $(test_seq 1 5)
> do
> git branch -f to-pack/$n HEAD || return 1
Re [1] maybe this is ok/fine for now, but I think we should really split
out the "is specific to file" part more narrowly (not just here, but in
general).
E.g. I assume that "pack-refs" is simply redundant under reftable, no?
So should this (which the test you're skipping later runs):
git maintenance run --task=pack-refs
Silently skip, warn, exit with zero or non-zero, some combination
thereof?
Should the current behavior documented in
Documentation/git-maintenance.txt change with your series under reftable
etc?
1. https://lore.kernel.org/git/87sg3k40mc.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
