On 3/24/2022 12:02 PM, Taylor Blau wrote: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 11:42:44AM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote: >> As I'm looking at Taylor's test case example, the one thing I notice >> is that there is only one pack-file before the repack. It would be >> good to have a non-kept packfile get repacked in the process, not >> just the loose objects added by the test_commit. I'll take a look at >> what can be done here. > > I think you are too good at nerd-sniping me ;-). Here's a more robust > test, that I think reads a little cleaner than the previous round. Let > me know what you think: Finally, you found my most redeeming quality! > + test_commit kept && > + git repack -ad && > + > + >$packdir/$(basename $packdir/pack-*.pack .pack).keep && > + > + test_commit unkept && > + git repack -d && > + > + test_commit new && > + > + find $packdir -type f -name "pack-*.idx" | sort >before && > + git repack --write-midx -a -b -d && > + find $packdir -type f -name "pack-*.idx" | sort >after && > + > + git rev-list --objects --no-object-names kept.. >expect.raw && > + sort expect.raw >expect && This is an interesting way to get this set of objects without storing the original pack name. It might be good to keep consistent with the way we get the new objects, though. > + > + git show-index <$(comm -13 before after) >actual.raw && > + cut -d" " -f2 actual.raw >actual && > + > + test_cmp expect actual > + ) I've got a modification of your original design prepared in my GGG PR and will send a v2 including it after it passes all of the builds. Thanks, -Stolee
