On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 05:28:45PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > > OK, I understand the use case you're trying to support, and your > > approach mostly makes sense. But there are two things I was surprised by > > in the implementation: > > > > 1. Does this need to be tied to cruft packs? The same logic would > > apply to "repack -A" which turns objects loose (of course you > > probably don't want to do that in the long term for performance > > reasons, but it's conceptually the same thing; see below). > > I agree that you wouldn't want to do it for performance reasons, but I'm > comfortable with the asymmetry here, since this is `pack.extraCruftTips` > (emphasis on "cruft"), so it's not clear that it has to be related to > "repack -A". > > Happy to change things up if you feel strongly, though. I don't feel strongly. I certainly have no intent to run "git repack -A" with extra tips specified. Mostly I just thought that it would be simpler to just apply it everywhere, both conceptually to the user and within the implementation. But since the cruft-pack implementation diverges quite a bit from the regular "-A" handling, I guess it makes the code more complex rather than less. The asymmetry feels like a wart to me, but I guess in the long run we'd hope that the "turn unreachable loose" strategy is deprecated anyway. -Peff
