On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 09:59:02AM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote: > On 4/13/2023 7:16 AM, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > When the user passes `-l` to git-repack(1), then they essentially ask us > > to only repack objects part of the local object database while ignoring > > any packfiles part of an alternate object database. And we in fact honor > > this bit when doing a geometric repack as the resulting packfile will > > only ever contain local objects. > > > + # Verify that our assumptions actually hold: both generated packfiles > > + # should have three objects and should be non-equal. > > + packed_objects shared/.git/objects/pack/pack-*.idx >packed-objects && > > + test_line_count = 3 packed-objects && > > + packed_objects member/.git/objects/pack/pack-*.idx >packed-objetcs && > > Typo: s/packed-objetcs/packed-objects/ > > > + test_line_count = 3 packed-objects && > > + test "$(basename member/.git/objects/pack/pack-*.pack)" != "$(basename shared/.git/objects/pack/pack-*.pack)" && > > nit: could we do this where we store the output of the previous two > commands into different files and then use "! test_cmp"? > > packed_objects shared/.git/objects/pack/pack-*.idx >shared-objects && > packed_objects member/.git/objects/pack/pack-*.idx >member-objects && > test_line_count = 3 shared-objects && > test_line_count = 3 member-objects && > ! test_cmp shared-objects member-objects && Yeah, this is definitely easier to read. Patrick
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
