On Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 02:28:57PM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:

On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 06:10:08PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/repack.c b/repack.c
index c4326a532d..7af297ae48 100644
--- a/repack.c
+++ b/repack.c

@@ -77,6 +77,12 @@ const char *write_pack_opts_pack_prefix(struct write_pack_opts *opts)
 	return pack_prefix;
 }

+int write_pack_opts_is_local(struct write_pack_opts *opts)
+{
+	const char *scratch;
+	return skip_prefix(opts->destination, opts->packdir, &scratch);
+}
+
 #define DELETE_PACK 1
 #define RETAIN_PACK 2

Now that we accept booleans in our codebase, should this function return
a `bool` instead?

Yeah, I agree that it should eventually return "bool", but I don't want
to make the change in this patch, at least within the context of this
series where I'm trying to keep the changes-per-patch as minimal as
possible.

quoted

diff --git a/repack.h b/repack.h
index 46d2312fa9..16f2de2ea9 100644
--- a/repack.h
+++ b/repack.h

@@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ struct write_pack_opts {
 };

 const char *write_pack_opts_pack_prefix(struct write_pack_opts *opts);
+int write_pack_opts_is_local(struct write_pack_opts *opts);

It would be good if all of these these new library functions could come
with some documentation what they actually do.

Fully agreed. I think there is enough here that I'd rather pursue this
as a separate step, but at least this series moves us in a good
direction to document things by putting the functions in a clean header
that is more amenable to documentation than the builtin is.

Thanks,
Taylor