Re: [PATCH 26/49] builtin/repack.c: remove "repack_promisor_objects()" from the builtin
From: Taylor Blau <hidden>
Date: 2025-10-07 20:37:00
On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 01:21:59AM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
quoted
diff --git a/repack-promisor.c b/repack-promisor.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..8bf42fc715 --- /dev/null +++ b/repack-promisor.c@@ -0,0 +1,102 @@ +#include "git-compat-util.h" +#include "repack.h" +#include "run-command.h" +#include "hex.h" +#include "repository.h" +#include "packfile.h" +#include "path.h" +#include "pack.h"Nit: these headers should probably be sorted lexicographically?
Yup, definitely. Fixed.
quoted
diff --git a/repack.h b/repack.h index f37eb49524..19dc4fd738 100644 --- a/repack.h +++ b/repack.h@@ -74,4 +74,8 @@ int generated_pack_has_ext(const struct generated_pack *pack, const char *ext); void generated_pack_install(struct generated_pack *pack, const char *name, const char *packdir, const char *packtmp); +void repack_promisor_objects(struct repository *repo, + const struct pack_objects_args *args, + struct string_list *names, const char *packtmp); + #endif /* REPACK_H */I'm not a huge fan of the code bein gin "repack-promisor.c" while the declarations are in "repack.h", as it makes things harder to find from my point of view. But I don't feel too strongly about this.
I think we have precedence for this in other places throughout the code (for e.g., "midx.h" => "midx.c" and "midx-write.c", "pack-bitmap.h" => "pack-bitmap.c" and "pack-bitmap-write.c", etc), so I think it's OK here. If you change your mind and do feel strongly about it later on, I'm happy to adjust it ;-). Thanks, Taylor