Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: >> It exactly is what "git gc" was meant to be. To put it differently, >> if you asked any non-novice end-user if there is one single command >> that s/he would use to keep a repository healthy, it is very likely >> that the answer would be "git gc". > > The biggest problem with bringing up `git gc` in this context (and it is > actually a quite big problem) is that "gc" stands for ... Ah, no, I wasn't saying "the single command has to be called 'gc'". I do not care too much about the name, as it will be hidden scripted away. I was responding to Josh's "We want a single point of entry for all the housekeeping tasks" with "yes---it is not any controversial new idea---we have had such a single entry point for housekeeping tasks in 'gc' for a long time and we are receptive of having such a single command".
