From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B43F51F461 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 18:10:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726989AbfGCSK0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Jul 2019 14:10:26 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:61486 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726721AbfGCSK0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Jul 2019 14:10:26 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B3ED1537E9; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 14:10:24 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=3gQ2mjY2W/BQcmCBroDQRKR0x08=; b=sicRbT l4IwDFvr4OsqQIm8XK3weBJyKQTyfUOvbiq2I01q7nAb41Wg/w7mXchldHXhNkVf f2smpOn1Nl0r6lrOEpYFvBj9bSZpZ1kewhT26krXehg/GWaB0X2tgljeds/3EAJt sanYeBd7+0KBM3xdWRuqAuJOVTJoSX485r+Lo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=WKSohFD6ysuIbM9EDT8oppjFSVrtsv2W D9efETPVb3iYyIKFmG59I8w9ADG7oUDAm40Jvj+p6cUbnjRSLnhIWTp7WdjS4cFm FjXr8Wf+dc4eN6mPpFnwTkhFprCv4EhV9JrVWIv0p1uDBi/2TPfyL3a1FFY5Bvvr TXxxMWD478M= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22E661537E8; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 14:10:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 786C01537E7; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 14:10:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Eric Wong , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , Janos Farkas , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/1] repack: warn if bitmaps are explicitly enabled with keep files References: <875zow8i85.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> <20190623180226.GA1100@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20190623180825.3ospajjgat3clwiu@dcvr> <20190623224244.GB1100@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20190628070211.hfweqcons6c6gy52@dcvr> <87zhm26uq9.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> <20190629191600.nipp2ut37xd3mx56@dcvr> <20190703173814.GA29348@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2019 11:10:22 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20190703173814.GA29348@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Wed, 3 Jul 2019 13:38:14 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: D38D001C-9DBD-11E9-9679-72EEE64BB12D-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > > A much more robust solution would be to stop conflating user-provided > permanent .keep files with temporary locks. I think that was a mistaken > design added many years ago. We probably could introduce a different > filename for the temporary locks (though I am not entirely convinced > they are necessary in the first place, as gc expiration-times would > generally save a racily-written packfile anyway). True, true (and I tend to agree). > Or perhaps we could differentiate our temporary locks from "real" .keep > files by looking at the content; I think our locks always say something > like "(receive|receive)-pack \d+ on .*", and it wouldn't be too onerous > to commit to that, I think (or even adjust it to something even more > unambiguous). True, but it may be overkill to open and read. > It does muddy the meaning of packed_git.pack_keep a bit. Some callers > would want to consider it kept in either case (i.e., for purposes of > pruning, we delete neither) and some would want it kept only for > non-locks (for packing, duplicating the objects is OK). So I think we'd > end up with two bits there, and callers would have to use one or the > other as appropriate. Yeah, I agree that we'd need to treat them separately in the longer run. Thanks.