Re: [PATCH 0/16] make prune mtime-checking more careful
- From
René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de>
- Date
- Oct 5, 2014, 09:19 UTC
- Message-ID
- <54310D0B.60904@web.de>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqbnprjx0t.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
Am 05.10.2014 um 00:22 schrieb Junio C Hamano:
Show 26 quoted lines
> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes: > >> There's quite a lot of patches here, but most of them are preparatory >> cleanups. The meat is in patches 13, 15, and 16. >> >> [01/16]: foreach_alt_odb: propagate return value from callback >> [02/16]: isxdigit: cast input to unsigned char >> [03/16]: object_array: factor out slopbuf-freeing logic >> [04/16]: object_array: add a "clear" function >> [05/16]: clean up name allocation in prepare_revision_walk >> [06/16]: reachable: clear pending array after walking it >> [07/16]: t5304: use test_path_is_* instead of "test -f" >> [08/16]: t5304: use helper to report failure of "test foo = bar" >> [09/16]: prune: factor out loose-object directory traversal >> [10/16]: count-objects: do not use xsize_t when counting object size >> [11/16]: count-objects: use for_each_loose_file_in_objdir >> [12/16]: sha1_file: add for_each iterators for loose and packed objects >> [13/16]: prune: keep objects reachable from recent objects >> [14/16]: pack-objects: refactor unpack-unreachable expiration check >> [15/16]: pack-objects: match prune logic for discarding objects >> [16/16]: write_sha1_file: freshen existing objects > > Somebody please help me out here. > > This applied on top of 'maint' (which does have c40fdd01) makes the > test #9 (prune: do not prune detached HEAD with no reflog) fail.
The test passes if the return value of freshen_file() is negated in freshen_packed_object() (see my reply to patch 16).
> If we merge 'dt/cache-tree-repair' (which in turn needs > 'jc/reopen-lock-file') to 'maint' and then apply these on top, the > said test passes. But I do not see an apparent reason why X-<.
Didn't check this interaction, but it sounds strange.
René