Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 12:27:51PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: >> I've had this sitting in my patch queue for a while now. It's a >> non-critical performance fix that avoids the repack/MIDX machinery from >> ever choosing a cruft pack as preferred when writing a MIDX bitmap >> without a given --preferred-pack. >> >> There is no correctness issue here, but choosing a pack with few/no >> reachable objects means that our pack reuse mechanism will rarely kick >> in, resulting in performance degradation. >> >> builtin/repack.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >> t/t7704-repack-cruft.sh | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 2 files changed, 85 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > Oops, I should have mentioned that this is meant to be applied on top of > 'tb/multi-cruft-pack' to reduce the conflict resolution burden. Sorry > about that. Sorry, but I do not follow. tb/multi-cruft-pack was merged to 'master' at c0b5d46d (Documentation/gitformat-pack.txt: drop mixed version section, 2023-08-28) but back then t7704 did not exist. Do you mean the other topic in-flight from you about max-cruft-size?
