Re: [PATCH 05/10] t/t9300-fast-import.sh: prepare for `gc --cruft` by default

[Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>]

On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 06:43:31AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 04:54:27PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote:
>
> > In a similar fashion as the previous commit, adjust the fast-import
> > tests to prepare for "git gc" generating a cruft pack by default.
> >
> > This adjustment is slightly different, however. Instead of relying on us
> > writing out the objects loose, and then calling `git prune` to remove
> > them, t9300 needs to be prepared to drop objects that would be moved
> > into cruft packs.
> >
> > To do this, we can combine the `git gc` invocation with `git prune` into
> > one `git gc --prune`, which handles pruning both loose objects, and
> > objects that would otherwise be written to a cruft pack.
>
> Good. This is more efficient anyway. It probably does not matter for our
> tiny test repository, but it is always good for our tests to model the
> best option when possible. :)

I spent more time than I'd willingly admit second-guessing myself
wondering if there was something I'm missing why we'd want to call `git
gc` and `git prune` separately.

As best as I can tell, this pattern started all the way back in
03db4525d3 (Support gitlinks in fast-import., 2008-07-19), which
happened after deprecating `git gc --prune` in 9e7d501990 (builtin-gc.c:
deprecate --prune, it now really has no effect, 2008-05-09).

After `--prune` was un-deprecated in 58e9d9d472 (gc: make --prune useful
again by accepting an optional parameter, 2009-02-14), we got a handful
of new uses in this script via 4cedb78cb5 (fast-import: add input format
tests, 2011-08-11), which could have been `git gc --prune`, but weren't
(likely taking after 03db4525d3).

I don't know if any of that detail is interesting enough to rise to the
level of needing to be in the patch itself, those were just my notes I
took while wandering through this part of the suite.

> >  t/t9300-fast-import.sh | 13 ++++---------
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> The patch itself looks good to me.

Thanks!

-Taylor