On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 10:30:52AM -0500, Derrick Stolee wrote:
> 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?
In the same sense that we are free to modify the global
ignore_packed_keep_in_core variable (because we only stop caring about
the modified state right before the program is about to exist) we can
freely mutate these variables, too.
> > + 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?
Exactly.
Thanks,
Taylor
