Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > In the discussions with Junio and Taylor following the first and > second versions, Junio suggested adding `--filter=<filter-spec>` to > `git gc` and I am still Ok with doing it, either later in a followup > patch or in a v4. I haven't done it yet, as it's not clear how to > implement it efficiently only in `git gc`. Did I make such a suggestion? I only said --filter=<filter-spec> does not seem like a good option to surface and stress at the end-user level for "git pack-objects". The similarity of "git prune-packed" with this new operation was brought up to illustrate the point that users of "git gc" do not want to even know about having to remove redundantly available objects via "prune-packed" by giving an extra option to "git gc" (hence --prune is the default), and honoring the filter spec when objects are known to be available via the configured promisor remote is likely what users at the "git gc" level would want to see happen automatically. IOW, adding more options to "gc" would be the last thing I would want to see.
