Derrick Stolee wrote: > On 3/7/2022 1:18 PM, Taylor Blau wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 10:06:00AM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote: >>> 2. Marking this as a repository format extension so it doesn't interact >>> poorly with Git implementations (including older versions of Git >>> itself) that are not aware of the new feature >> >> The design of cruft packs was done intentionally to avoid needing a >> format extension. The cruft pack is "just a pack" to any older version >> of Git. The only thing an older version of Git wouldn't understand is >> how to interpret the .mtimes file. But that's no different than the >> current behavior without cruft packs, where any unreachable object >> inherits the mtime of its containing pack. >> >> So an older version of Git might prune a different set of objects than a >> version that understands cruft packs depending on the contents of the >> .mtimes file, the mtime of the cruft pack, and the width of the grace >> period. But I think by downgrading you are more or less buying into the >> existing behavior. So I don't think there is a compelling reason to >> introduce a format extension here. > > In particular, older versions would first explode unreachable objects > out of the cruft pack and into loose objects before expiring any of > them based on the loose object mtime. There is no risk here of causing > problems with older versions of Git and does not need an extension. Surely when older and versions are acting on the same repository, they would fight by exploding out unreachable objects, packing them back into a cruft pack, etc, no? Thanks, Jonathan
