On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 1:49 PM Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 09:25:40PM +0200, Christian Couder wrote:
> > +--filter-to=<dir>::
> > + Write the pack containing filtered out objects to the
> > + directory `<dir>`. This can be used for putting the pack on a
> > + separate object directory that is accessed through the Git
> > + alternates mechanism. Only useful with `--filter`.
>
> Here you say "only useful with --filter", but...
>
> > @@ -1073,8 +1077,11 @@ int cmd_repack(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> > strvec_push(&cmd.args, "--incremental");
> > }
> >
> > - if (po_args.filter)
> > - prepare_pack_filtered_cmd(&pack_filtered_cmd, &po_args, packtmp);
> > + if (po_args.filter) {
> > + if (!filter_to)
> > + filter_to = packtmp;
> > + prepare_pack_filtered_cmd(&pack_filtered_cmd, &po_args, filter_to);
> > + }
>
> Would you want an "} else if (filter_to)" here to die and show the usage
> message, since --filter-to needs --filter? Or maybe it should imply
> --filter-to.
In the doc for --expire-to=<dir> there is "Only useful with `--cruft
-d`" and I don't think there is a check to see if --cruft and -d have
been passed when --expire-to is passed. So I am not sure if it's
better to be consistent with --expire-to or not.
