Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I'm not sure... if we did:
>
> --- 8< ---
>
> diff --git a/setup.c b/setup.c
> index 04ce33cdcd..fa54c9baa4 100644
> --- a/setup.c
> +++ b/setup.c
> @@ -565,2 +565,4 @@ static enum extension_result handle_extension(const char *var,
> return EXTENSION_OK;
> + } else if (!strcmp(ext, "cruftpacks")) {
> + return EXTENSION_OK;
> }
>
> --- >8 ---
>
> but nothing more, then a hypothetical `extensions.cruftPacks` could be
> used to prevent older writers in a mixed version environment. But if you
> don't have or care about older versions of Git, you can avoid setting it
> altogether.
Smells like "unsafe by default, but you can opt into safety", which
is backwards, isn't it?
>> I do not quite see how it helps. After hearing "... will lose
>> information about the mtimes ...", what concrete action can a user
>> take? Or a sys-admin?
>>
>> It's not like use of cruft-pack is mandatory when you upgrade the
>> new version of Git, right? Perhaps use of cruft-pack should be
>> guarded behind a configuration variable so that users who might want
>> to use mixed versions of Git will be protected against accidental
>> use of new version of Git that introduces the forever-renewing
>> untracked objects problem?
>
> I don't think we would have much to offer a user in that case; if the
> mtimes are gone, then I couldn't think of anything to bring them back
> outside of setting them manually.
Yes, so rambling about losing mtimes in documentation or release
notes would not help users all that much. Let's not do that.
> But cruft packs are already guarded in two places:
>
> - `git repack` won't write a cruft pack unless given the `--cruft`
> flag (i.e., `git repack -A` doesn't suddenly start generating cruft
> packs upon upgrade).
>
> - `git gc` won't write cruft packs unless the `gc.cruftPacks`
> configuration is set, or `--cruft` is given as a flag.
Hmph, OK. So individuals can sort-of protect from hurting
themselves by refraining from running these with --cruft or writing
--cruft in their maintenance scripts. An organization that wants to
let the more adventurous types to early opt-in can prepare two
versions of the maintenance scripts they distribute to their users,
one with and the other without --cruft, and use the mechanism they
use for gradual rollouts to control the population. Perhaps that
would make sufficient protection? I dunno.
Jonathan, what do you think?
> I'd be curious what Jonathan and others think of that approach (which,
> to be clear, is what this series already implements). We could make it
> clear to say:
>
> If you have mixed versions of Git which both repack a repository
> (either manually or by auto-GC / background maintenance), consider
> leaving `gc.cruftPacks` unset and avoiding passing `--cruft` as a
> command-line argument to `git repack` and `git gc`, since doing so
> can lead to [...]
That message is (depending on what comes in [...]) much more helpful
than just throwing a word "mtime" out and letting the reader figure
out the rest ;-)
