On 11/29/2021 5:25 PM, Taylor Blau wrote:
> +static void enumerate_and_traverse_cruft_objects(struct string_list *fresh_packs)
> +{
...
> + /*
> + * Re-mark only the fresh packs as kept so that objects in
> + * unknown packs do not halt the reachability traversal early.
> + */
> + for (p = get_all_packs(the_repository); p; p = p->next)
> + p->pack_keep_in_core = 0;
> + mark_pack_kept_in_core(fresh_packs, 1);
Are we ever going to recover this pack_keep_in_core state? Should we
be saving it somewhere so we can return without mutating this state
permanently?
> + if (prepare_revision_walk(&revs))
> + die(_("revision walk setup failed"));
> + if (progress)
> + progress_state = start_progress(_("Traversing cruft objects"), 0);
> + nr_seen = 0;
> + traverse_commit_list(&revs, show_cruft_commit, show_cruft_object, NULL);
> +
> + stop_progress(&progress_state);
> +}
> +
> static void read_cruft_objects(void)
> {
> struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
> @@ -3515,7 +3597,7 @@ static void read_cruft_objects(void)
> mark_pack_kept_in_core(&discard_packs, 0);
>
> if (cruft_expiration)
> - die("--cruft-expiration not yet implemented");
> + enumerate_and_traverse_cruft_objects(&fresh_packs);
> else
> enumerate_cruft_objects();
> basic_cruft_pack_tests never
> +basic_cruft_pack_tests 2.weeks.ago
I'm surprised these tests didn't require any changes to adapt to the
new expiration date. But I suppose none of the mtimes were older than
two weeks ago?
I continue to miss something in these tests, because I don't see how
things are becoming unreachable.
Thanks,
-Stolee
