On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 05:48:38PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > The one case that could matter is if pack-objects generates an extension > we don't know about, like ".tmp-pack-$$-$hash.some-new-ext". The current > code will quietly delete such a file, while after this patch we'd leave > it in place. In practice this doesn't happen, and would be indicative of > a bug. Leaving the file as cruft is arguably a better behavior, as it > means somebody is more likely to eventually notice and fix the bug. If > we really wanted to be paranoid, we could scan for and warn about such > files, but that seems like overkill. I agree, that would definitely be overkill. > There's nothing to test with regard to the removal of this function. It > was doing nothing, so the behavior should be the same. However, we can > verify (and protect) our assumption that "repack -ad" will eventually > remove stray files by adding a test for that. Thanks for adding such a test. This patch is beautiful :-). Thanks, Taylor
