Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] t7700: demonstrate mishandling of objects in packs with a .keep file

From: Brandon Casey <casey@nrlssc.navy.mil>
Date: Nov 12, 2008, 17:30 UTC
Message-ID: <NRnq_JA3Ngz2v6EUhSwtVu5zewgvJgLsW85zZZqzrYE@cipher.nrlssc.navy.mil>
In-Reply-To: <20081112080909.GA29176@coredump.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

> On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 02:37:05PM -0600, Brandon Casey wrote:
> 
>> This version replaces the use of 'head -n -1' with a grep, and should work on
>> all platforms.
> 
> Hmm. I'm not sure what happened, but the version in 'next' has "head -n
> -1" in it.

Well, there were so many revisions, I probably should have re-rolled the whole series. I wasn't sure this was going to go in as is, based on the [Dropped] message in the "What's Cooking" email and Junio's last email about reconciling --unpacked and --incremental. I have been working through the --unpacked code path, but I'm not to the point where I can suggest a change there.

But, I think it's worse than just the wrong t7700.

These two:

   packed_git: convert pack_local flag into generic bit mask
   packed_git: add new PACK_KEEP flag and haspackkeep() access macro

should have been replaced by:

   packed_git: convert pack_local flag into a bitfield and add pack_keep

which uses a struct bitfield rather than a bitmask.

And then this

   pack-objects: honor '.keep' files

was replaced by this

   pack-objects: new option --honor-pack-keep
   repack: don't repack local objects in packs with .keep file

if that's the way we want to go. I'm not partial to the phrase honor-pack-keep, but I don't think ignore-pack-keep is appropriate, and it's the best I've come up with.

So,

   31d92611e45d1286b805e362dbc451936af24121
   7c335327be664751fa4c04e81b2fe3bfedceaada
   77b5a5478a77cc04b674891b542db1ba1a1bf4f7
   13e7f5d2f1da42619bd545590d0044b30d00ce4b

should be reverted, and replaced by the series to follow.

-brandon