On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 06:48:13AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 04:54:33PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote:
>
> > In the last commit, we refactored some of the tests in t6500 to make
> > clearer when cruft packs will and won't be generated by `git gc`.
> >
> > Add the remaining cases not covered by the previous patch into this one,
> > which enumerates all possible combinations of arguments that will
> > produce (or not produce) a cruft pack.
> >
> > This prepares us for the following commit, which will change the default
> > of `gc.cruftPacks` by ensuring that we understand which invocations do
> > and do not change as a result.
>
> I think "the following commit" is really patch 9. Patch 8 adjusts t6501
> (and likewise says "like the previous commits"). It would probably make
> more sense to put patch 8 before patches 6 and 7.
I'm glad you said something, because shortly after I sent this series I
was annoyed with myself for not organizing the preparatory patches in
order of their test number.
I reordered them like so:
c02f80e1e2 t/t5304-prune.sh: prepare for `gc --cruft` by default
2e0fb1382b t/t6501-freshen-objects.sh: prepare for `gc --cruft` by default
c916e6d356 t/t6500-gc.sh: refactor cruft pack tests
f9f7b2137b t/t6500-gc.sh: add additional test cases
5a74520b35 t/t9300-fast-import.sh: prepare for `gc --cruft` by default
Which feels much better to me.
> Probably not worth a re-roll on its own, but if you're doing one anyway,
> it should be easy to do.
Agreed on both. I'm rerolling a few tiny things anyways, so I'll squash
this in, too.
Thanks,
Taylor
