From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Torsten_B=F6gershausen?= Subject: Re: [PATCH] repack.c: rename and unlink pack file if it exists Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 22:01:16 +0100 Message-ID: <52F2A69C.50000@web.de> References: <20140205011632.GA3923@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20140205201243.GA16899@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Stefan Beller , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Torsten_?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?B=F6gershausen?= , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano , Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Feb 05 22:01:36 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 1WB9bC-00061g-EQ for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 22:01:34 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756175AbaBEVBY (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Feb 2014 16:01:24 -0500 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.15.4]:51425 "EHLO mout.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754449AbaBEVBT (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Feb 2014 16:01:19 -0500 Received: from [192.168.209.26] ([78.72.74.102]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LpfJW-1VXykl2rJu-00fVQX for ; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 22:01:17 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 In-Reply-To: X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:TjLV3AXpWXC0I6eJzeM+1IK0gdliZof9JDl2ZxmJxL+blgKqDM5 3oZJgNzDxN9Pkn5o40d4jx75l1MX3FqqAu2gVViFCs1Fq48PBfNrotwITQ9hm5on9WrVwrH lbQcpdnf+ey2T+gIQAC2djMnm95i9KeV/K9n5WJDXZHZfZqBfXe/Ff0eVPT9ObKeHBS1MbR OuMAji4j1AUvRqznPBppw== Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 2014-02-05 21.31, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > >> The minimal fix you posted below does make sense to me as a stopgap, and >> we can look into dropping the code entirely during the next cycle. It >> would be nice to have a test to cover this case, though. > > Sounds sensible. Run "repack -a -d" once, and then another while > forcing it to be single threaded, or something? I can put a test case on my todo list, and thanks for the minimal patch.