On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 09:59:02AM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote:
> On 4/13/2023 7:16 AM, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> > When the user passes `-l` to git-repack(1), then they essentially ask us
> > to only repack objects part of the local object database while ignoring
> > any packfiles part of an alternate object database. And we in fact honor
> > this bit when doing a geometric repack as the resulting packfile will
> > only ever contain local objects.
> 
> > +	# Verify that our assumptions actually hold: both generated packfiles
> > +	# should have three objects and should be non-equal.
> > +	packed_objects shared/.git/objects/pack/pack-*.idx >packed-objects &&
> > +	test_line_count = 3 packed-objects &&
> > +	packed_objects member/.git/objects/pack/pack-*.idx >packed-objetcs &&
> 
> Typo: s/packed-objetcs/packed-objects/
> 
> > +	test_line_count = 3 packed-objects &&
> > +	test "$(basename member/.git/objects/pack/pack-*.pack)" != "$(basename shared/.git/objects/pack/pack-*.pack)" &&
> 
> nit: could we do this where we store the output of the previous two
> commands into different files and then use "! test_cmp"?
> 
> 	packed_objects shared/.git/objects/pack/pack-*.idx >shared-objects &&
> 	packed_objects member/.git/objects/pack/pack-*.idx >member-objects &&
> 	test_line_count = 3 shared-objects &&
> 	test_line_count = 3 member-objects &&
> 	! test_cmp shared-objects member-objects &&

Yeah, this is definitely easier to read.

Patrick