From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] repack.c: rename and unlink pack file if it exists Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 16:09:54 -0500 Message-ID: <20140205210954.GA24142@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20140205011632.GA3923@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20140205201243.GA16899@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20140205203740.GA17077@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20140205210129.GA24314@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Stefan Beller , Torsten =?utf-8?Q?B=C3=B6gershausen?= , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Feb 05 22:10:31 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WB9jq-0003X4-7M for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 22:10:30 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932541AbaBEVKW (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Feb 2014 16:10:22 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:45333 "HELO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S932520AbaBEVJ4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Feb 2014 16:09:56 -0500 Received: (qmail 20008 invoked by uid 102); 5 Feb 2014 21:09:56 -0000 Received: from c-71-63-4-13.hsd1.va.comcast.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (71.63.4.13) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 15:09:56 -0600 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 05 Feb 2014 16:09:54 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 01:08:36PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > ... So the fact that this > > bug exists doesn't really produce any user-visible behavior, and > > hopefully post-release we would drop the code entirely, and the test > > would have no reason to exist. > > Heh, thanks, and I agree with the reasoning for the longer-term > direction. Perhaps I can/should hold it off that minimal fix-up > patch from -rc3, then? I am on the fence but I already started my > today's integration cycle _with_ the fix merged to 'master', so... I would say leave the fix for -rc3, but not worry about the test. -Peff