On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 04:54:36PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > We could run this test twice, once with `--cruft` and once with > `--no-cruft`, but doing so is unnecessary, since the object rescuing and > freshening behavior is already extensively tested via t5329. That's doubtless true for the general case of freshening (after all, that's the point of cruft packs). I do wonder about these "broken links" cases: > @@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ test_expect_success 'do not complain about existing broken links (commit)' ' > some message > EOF > commit=$(git hash-object -t commit -w broken-commit) && > - git gc -q 2>stderr && > + git gc --no-cruft -q 2>stderr && > verbose git cat-file -e $commit && > test_must_be_empty stderr > ' The idea is that we don't complain when repacking unreachable-but-broken segments of history. Which could perhaps behave differently for objects that are going into a cruft pack versus being turned loose. So maybe it's worth covering for the --cruft case, too. I dunno. Certainly your patch is not making the test coverage worse, but it might be highlighting an existing blind-spot (and one that will become the default behavior in the next patch). -Peff
