Re: [PATCH 0/3] repack: handle --keep-pack, --max-pack-size for geometric repacks
- From
Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@github.com>
- Date
- May 20, 2022, 20:05 UTC
- Message-ID
- <b151f2bb-bdc7-e004-f1d4-e1a83c2b73db@github.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <5517f0f8-871c-a155-7d8c-d0d6086bb7d2@github.com>
On 5/20/2022 3:46 PM, Victoria Dye wrote:
Show 33 quoted lines
> Taylor Blau wrote: >> This series fixes two issues that Victoria and I noticed while working on an >> unrelated issue yesterday. >> >> - The first patch comes from Victoria's earlier submission[1], and addresses >> an issue where packs specified as kept via the `--keep-pack` option could >> potentially be removed (without rewriting their objects) during a >> `--geometric` repack. >> >> The first patch is Victoria's alone, with some minor fixups applied from my >> review in [2]. It's included in this series since it's related, and avoids >> any conflicts when merging. >> > > I'm happy with the fixes you applied here and don't have anything else I'd > like to add this patch. > >> - The latter two patches are mine, and address an issue where specifying a >> `--max-pack-size` value during a `--geometric` repack could result in object >> loss because of a false positive in our "did we write a pack with this >> name?" check (which can occur when the list of packs we wrote isn't sorted). >> >> The first of these two patches demonstrates the issue (done in a separate >> patch, since the scenario is quite involved), and the second patch fixes the >> bug. >> > > I was worried about the robustness of the test, but some deeper diving > revealed that it should produce consistent results. Otherwise, the fix > itself is a straightforward (albeit hard to find in the first place). These > two patches look good to me! > >> Thanks in advance for your review.
I'm chiming in to say that I also read these patches and think they are good. Couldn't find a way to improve them.
Thanks, -Stolee