On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 04:32:52PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: > > > Hmm. We care to _some_ degree, since that's the condition we set up for > > making sure that update-ref cannot take the lock. But it would probably > > be fine to just confirm that we failed to take the lock. And there, > > checking for just "Unable to create $Q.*packed-refs.lock" would be > > sufficient. > > Yeah, that was what I was getting at. On top, we could also see > "test -e" after noticing the failure but that probably does not help > us prove anything.
Yeah, I don't think there is any point in "test -e". We were the ones who created the file in the first place, so it would be very surprising if it weren't there. ;) -Peff
