> By the way, the band-aid in this patch may be OK for the upcoming > release (purely because it is easy to see that is sufficient for > today's codebase), but I said the above because I worry about the > health of the codebase in the longer term. The "pass_header" may > not stay to be the only difference between the URI packfile and > in-stream packfile in the way they make index-pack invocations. That is true, but at the same time, I think it's better to have the arguments be the same because there are options (e.g. --promisor and --fsck-objects) that have to be duplicated, and I think that for the most part, the URI packfiles and the inline packfile will be processed identically.
