From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EB27C433FE for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 23:51:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229917AbiJUXvj (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Oct 2022 19:51:39 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:48084 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229832AbiJUXvh (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Oct 2022 19:51:37 -0400 Received: from mail-io1-xd2a.google.com (mail-io1-xd2a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2a]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F61F12344F for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 16:51:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd2a.google.com with SMTP id h203so3636848iof.1 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 16:51:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ttaylorr-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=BpMHmBXieK/wdyT1m6bWvr/EZTvQxL6eamuuNpuxEsI=; b=YjjNeZxr9R1xF/fucipf/UXCuknQrS05xdsrzpJmb0MxMsghysJoanT3uSCpJH625g l3pjYV09xTiNywGwUdpSgLKVGYVwsic/sCjsjakeJoq1RSQUEjc5Dd6/ml1hKXZr0tiU G42PFsWgQLAbf3yVwzIDt8wArouF7XCei+eMWy/4JFBR7zN/ikkjRUgf66zj5rmcx3Fj 0f5nTrdczRbAMumfZ4hxN24P+ZNavLcEpri/xOFn0EmRNs6RKd+9Ag/hWUO6iVpwepfE /g0G7nqioEfIhn9wk5SaMi56sxUzP7sp6iMLhDy5dSS+KnBzh3tpR3dxEMj5dA+CBfqi b+Wg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=BpMHmBXieK/wdyT1m6bWvr/EZTvQxL6eamuuNpuxEsI=; b=uxuhlznlPyBWk0h/CCZQH/cEYq64X8Aaidvi/NPzW4vls//nz56Rr3yawVyYWpbO2K n65WxsRTWTy+wnYdz2aktakqxl8mSZDr0kWpKXGDbE88iSHaQto3K7owwaGfQDUaougq L1MHiDVO+Qe2PG99CoqSg3eQFfVmuGt04Uni5LBDJy2hqgS5TSZEWMt5EKwFBOyKRV7D SPGeXnsGe42fGzJtgw3c2cBrhO3pzZHbDX2baaXJEpbd6WbBlRyHE6mLSqww/rLlE27c ngkcoWgV53mKJYl+DmmKlbYXpz4FBJTyRoHyTF8fkAUqYi89lUzrBtdgM4WjNP5ckM1Q PQgQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf2mJ4fGd3ucIUmo8ToYFga/9goDydqlvZA4iNHZkmZDmkKfk6so 7+gTQwlcxqAIjZApTIgoYE6chg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM4LrRULs9xkvmUvs5k4nATwMSG9/fAGx8A/W6i7o70wIBgz4hgo4s4HMBDr43+pAZz7Jru6cQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6638:19c4:b0:363:afc3:b403 with SMTP id bi4-20020a05663819c400b00363afc3b403mr17365035jab.144.1666396294633; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 16:51:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (104-178-186-189.lightspeed.milwwi.sbcglobal.net. [104.178.186.189]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o69-20020a022248000000b00363d6918540sm4682756jao.171.2022.10.21.16.51.34 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 21 Oct 2022 16:51:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 19:51:33 -0400 From: Taylor Blau To: Jeff King Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jan =?utf-8?Q?Pokorn=C3=BD?= Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] repack: drop remove_temporary_files() Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 05:48:38PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > The one case that could matter is if pack-objects generates an extension > we don't know about, like ".tmp-pack-$$-$hash.some-new-ext". The current > code will quietly delete such a file, while after this patch we'd leave > it in place. In practice this doesn't happen, and would be indicative of > a bug. Leaving the file as cruft is arguably a better behavior, as it > means somebody is more likely to eventually notice and fix the bug. If > we really wanted to be paranoid, we could scan for and warn about such > files, but that seems like overkill. I agree, that would definitely be overkill. > There's nothing to test with regard to the removal of this function. It > was doing nothing, so the behavior should be the same. However, we can > verify (and protect) our assumption that "repack -ad" will eventually > remove stray files by adding a test for that. Thanks for adding such a test. This patch is beautiful :-). Thanks, Taylor