On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 12:13 AM Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > When there is: > > - at least one pre-existing packfile (which is not marked as kept), > - repacking with the `-d` flag, and > - not doing a cruft repack > > , then we pass a handful of additional options to the inner Nit (not worth a reroll): I think the comma at the beginning of the above line would be better after "not doing a cruft repack". > `pack-objects` process, like `--unpack-unreachable`, > `--keep-unreachable`, and `--pack-loose-unreachable`, in addition to > marking any packs we just wrote for promisor remotes as kept in-core > (with `--keep-pack`, as opposed to the presence of a ".keep" file on > disk).
