On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 04:42:41PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Storing them inside cruft packs may be a reasonable choice to make > today, in the sense that among various object storage mechansim, the > cruft pack mechanism may be the best fit in today's system, but it > does not have to stay that way. Naming the variable to specify the > hooks with name "cruft" in them would make it hard to explain once > we find an even better storage mechanism to store such a "not really > used but want to keep" objects. I dunno. I thought about this too, and I get your argument, but I am not convinced that a future mechanism would lend itself well to keeping around additional sets of objects in the same way cruft packs do. In that case, we would prefer having called this `pack.extraCruftTips` and relegating it to the cruft pack system. We could make this more generic, and extend support to the legacy prune-via-loose mechanism. But like I said to Peff, I have a hard time imagining anybody using it. So, I'm torn. I see what you're saying, but I think I still tend to fall on the side of leaving it as-is. Thanks, Taylor
