On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 02:02:53PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> > + if (unlink(path.buf) && errno != ENOENT)
> > + die_errno(_("could not remove stale bitmap: %s"),
> > + path.buf);
>
> We could downgrade this to a warning, since there is no downside to
> retaining those files (aside from wasted space). In
> remove_redundant_pack(), we call into unlink_pack_path(), which just
> ignores unlink errors (though arguably it should at least warn).
I think that downgrading this to `warning_errno()` is appropriate. I'll
make that change locally and send a new version.
I think a good separate topic is teaching `remove_redundant_pack()` to
emit warnings for non-ENOENT errors, too. But I'll leave that for
another day :-).
> > @@ -1059,10 +1088,15 @@ int cmd_repack(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> > refs_snapshot ? get_tempfile_path(refs_snapshot) : NULL,
> > show_progress, write_bitmaps > 0);
> >
> > + if (ret) {
> > + string_list_clear(&include, 0);
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (write_bitmaps)
> > + remove_redundant_bitmaps(&include, packdir);
> > +
> > string_list_clear(&include, 0);
> > -
> > - if (ret)
> > - return ret;
> > }
>
> You could avoid having to repeat the string-list cleanup here by
> structuring it like:
>
> if (!ret && write_bitmaps)
> remove_redundant_bitmaps(&include, packdir);
>
> /* as before, clear string list and possibly return ret */
>
> Since it's only one line, it's not that big a deal, but it simplifies
> the flow.
>
> It's correct either way, of course. One thing I did have to do while
> reviewing this was look at this hunk in place. The context omits that
> this is in the "if (write_midx)" conditional, which is of course very
> important. ;)
Great suggestion, thanks. I'll apply it locally and send a reroll now.
Thanks,
Taylor
