On 5/20/2022 3:46 PM, Victoria Dye wrote: > Taylor Blau wrote: >> This series fixes two issues that Victoria and I noticed while working on an >> unrelated issue yesterday. >> >> - The first patch comes from Victoria's earlier submission[1], and addresses >> an issue where packs specified as kept via the `--keep-pack` option could >> potentially be removed (without rewriting their objects) during a >> `--geometric` repack. >> >> The first patch is Victoria's alone, with some minor fixups applied from my >> review in [2]. It's included in this series since it's related, and avoids >> any conflicts when merging. >> > > I'm happy with the fixes you applied here and don't have anything else I'd > like to add this patch. > >> - The latter two patches are mine, and address an issue where specifying a >> `--max-pack-size` value during a `--geometric` repack could result in object >> loss because of a false positive in our "did we write a pack with this >> name?" check (which can occur when the list of packs we wrote isn't sorted). >> >> The first of these two patches demonstrates the issue (done in a separate >> patch, since the scenario is quite involved), and the second patch fixes the >> bug. >> > > I was worried about the robustness of the test, but some deeper diving > revealed that it should produce consistent results. Otherwise, the fix > itself is a straightforward (albeit hard to find in the first place). These > two patches look good to me! > >> Thanks in advance for your review. I'm chiming in to say that I also read these patches and think they are good. Couldn't find a way to improve them. Thanks, -Stolee
