Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I think it's worth discussing naming, but it's kind of a distraction > from what Brian brought up. The real question is, do we consider the > existing "git gc" infrastructure such a lost cause that we should > touch it as little as possible? I am fine with that, as long as the "new" thing will take over what "git gc" currently does. It has always been bothering me that the maintenance pieces for features added in the past few years like midx were deliberately let outside the scope of "one entry point for housekeeping".
