On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 01:49:26PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > Then those objects will remain in the cruft pack. Which is why, as I > > said, it is not generally safe to just delete a cruft pack. > > ... and my reply was about the needed changes to still make cruft packs > always crufty even if some of its content suddenly becomes useful again. I think we are somehow missing each other's point, then. My point is that you do not _need_ to make the cruft packs 100% cruft. You can tolerate the duplicated objects until they are pruned. Earlier in the thread, I outlined another scheme by which you could repack and avoid the duplicates. It does not require changes to git's object lookup process, because it would involve manually feeding the list of cruft objects to pack-objects (which will pack what you ask it, regardless of whether the objects are in other packs). > > However, when you do a full repack, those objects will be copied into > > the new pack (because they are referenced). Which is why I am claiming > > that it is safe to remove cruft packs at that point. > > Yes, but then there is no point marking such packs as cruft if at any > moment they can become useful again. How do you know to keep the packs around and expire them after 2 weeks if they are not marked in some way? Otherwise you would delete them as part of a "git gc", pushing the reachable objects into the new pack and the unreachable objects into a new cruft pack. IOW, you need some way of keeping the expiration date on the unreachable objects, or they will keep getting "refreshed" by each gc. -Peff -- 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