Re: [PATCH 2/2] object-file: flush transaction packfile before migrating objects

> On Sun, Sep 13, 2026 at 03:26:22PM -0500, Justin Tobler wrote:
> > diff --git a/object-file.c b/object-file.c
> > index 0f123b79fad1..210984f82532 100644
> > --- a/object-file.c
> > +++ b/object-file.c
> > @@ -1262,6 +1262,8 @@ static int odb_transaction_files_commit(struct odb_transaction *base)
> >  		container_of(base, struct odb_transaction_files, base);
> >  	int have_packfile = !!transaction->packfile.f;
> >  
> > +	flush_packfile_transaction(transaction);
> > +
> >  	if (transaction->objdir) {
> >  		struct strbuf temp_path = STRBUF_INIT;
> >  		struct tempfile *temp;
> > @@ -1292,8 +1294,6 @@ static int odb_transaction_files_commit(struct odb_transaction *base)
> >  		transaction->objdir = NULL;
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	flush_packfile_transaction(transaction);
> > -
> >  	if (have_packfile)
> >  		odb_reprepare(transaction->base.source->odb);
> >  
> 
> In the preceding commit you wrote:
> 
>     In a subsequent commit, repreparing the ODB is slightly deferred
>     when committing a "files" ODB transaction.
> 
> But that's not really true -- you don't delay repreparing the object
> database, but instead only flush earlier. The reprepare still happens at
> the same point in time.

> > diff --git a/t/t1050-large.sh b/t/t1050-large.sh
> > index d295c265c75c..fb83c8fba619 100755
> > --- a/t/t1050-large.sh
> > +++ b/t/t1050-large.sh
> > @@ -87,6 +87,22 @@ test_expect_success 'add a large file or two' '
> >  	test $count = 1
> >  '
> >  
> > +test_expect_success 'add large file with loose object in batch fsync' '
> > +	test_when_finished "rm -rf batch" &&
> > +	git init batch &&
> 
> I feel like using a subshell might've helped here for readability. But,
> oh well, it saves us an extra process.

> > +	git -C batch config core.bigFileThreshold 5 &&
> > +	echo foo >batch/1-small &&
> > +	echo foobar >batch/2-large &&
> > +
> > +	git -C batch -c core.fsync=loose-object -c core.fsyncMethod=batch \
> > +		add 1-small 2-large &&
> > +
> > +	# Neither object may be left behind in a temporary location.
> 
> You don't really verify whether they are left behind, but rather verify
> that the can be read. Which is a bit of a different thing.