From: Doug Kelly Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 19:56:38 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] prepare_packed_git(): refactor garbage reporting in pack directory Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Doug Kelly writes: > >> I think the patches I sent (a bit prematurely) address the >> remaining comments... I did find there was a relevant test in >> t5304 already, so I added a new test in the same section (and >> cleaned up some of the garbage it wasn't removing before). I'm >> not sure if it's poor form to move tests around like this, but I >> figured it might be best to keep them logically grouped. > > OK, will queue as I didn't spot anything glaringly wrong ;-) > > I did wonder if we want to say anything about .bitmap files, though. > If there is one without matching .idx and .pack, shouldn't we report > just like we report .idx without .pack (or vice versa)? > > Thanks. I think you're right -- this would be something worth following up on. At least, t5304 doesn't cover this case explicitly, but when I tried adding an empty bitmap with a bogus name, I did see a "no corresponding .idx or .pack" error, similar to the stale .keep file. I'd trust your (and Jeff's) knowledge on this far more than my own, but would it be a bad idea to clean up .keep and .bitmap files if the .idx/.pack pair are missing? I think we may have had a discussion previously on how things along these lines might be racey -- but I don't know what order the .keep file is created in relation to the .idx/.pack.