"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx> writes: > Which got me thinking.... the whole point of leaving the objects loose > is to make it easier to expire them, right? But given how expensive it > is to have loose objects lying around, why not: > > a) Have git-pack-objects have an option which writes the unreachable > objects into a separate pack file, instead of kicking them loose? > > b) Have git-prune delete a pack only if *all* of the objects in the > pack meet the expiry deadline? > > What would be the downsides of pursueing such a strategy? Is it worth > trying to implement as proof-of-concept? I do not offhand see a downside; as a matter of fact, there has already been the first-step change in the direction in v1.7.10.2 and newer that avoids exploading the unreachable ones into loose object if we know they are going to be immediately pruned. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html