Re: [PATCH 04/49] builtin/repack.c: avoid "the_repository" when removing packs

Taylor Blau
2025-10-10T22:49:57Z

On Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 01:22:56AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 06:07:26PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote:
>
> > -static void remove_redundant_pack(const char *dir_name, const char *base_name)
> > +static void remove_redundant_pack(struct repository *repo,
> > + const char *dir_name, const char *base_name)
> > {
> > struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
> > - struct odb_source *source = the_repository->objects->sources;
> > + struct odb_source *source = repo->objects->sources;
> > struct multi_pack_index *m = get_multi_pack_index(source);
> > strbuf_addf(&buf, "%s.pack", base_name);
> > if (m && source->local && midx_contains_pack(m, buf.buf))
> > - clear_midx_file(the_repository);
> > + clear_midx_file(repo);
> > strbuf_insertf(&buf, 0, "%s/", dir_name);
> > unlink_pack_path(buf.buf, 1);
> > strbuf_release(&buf);
> > }
>
> Ah, yeah, this is a good example of what I was talking about in the
> other part of the thread. Probably this function could just take the
> object_source pointer to find the midx. But then it wouldn't be able to
> use clear_midx_file(). That function arguably should itself take an
> object_source pointer and not a repo pointer, but it feels like minimal
> gain to go around trying to tighten these (and certainly something we
> could easily do later, even programatically, if we cared).

Yup, I agree. The changes to `clear_midx_file()` seem like a good
candidate for #leftoverbits to me.

Thanks,
Taylor