On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 09:19:56AM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> The documentation for geometric repacking mentions a "--unpacked" option
> that supposedly changes how loose objects are rolled up. This option has
> never existed, and the implied behaviour, namely to include all unpacked
> objects into the resulting packfile, is in fact the default behaviour.
>
> Correct the documentation to not mention this option.
>
> Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx>
> ---
> Documentation/git-repack.txt | 7 ++-----
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-repack.txt b/Documentation/git-repack.txt
> index dfd2a59c50..d61078b697 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-repack.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/git-repack.txt
> @@ -226,11 +226,8 @@ uniquely by the set of packs being "rolled-up"; in other words, the
> packs determined to need to be combined in order to restore a geometric
> progression.
> +
> -When `--unpacked` is specified, loose objects are implicitly included in
> -this "roll-up", without respect to their reachability. This is subject
> -to change in the future. This option (implying a drastically different
> -repack mode) is not guaranteed to work with all other combinations of
> -option to `git repack`.
> +Loose objects are implicitly included in this "roll-up", without respect to
> +their reachability. This is subject to change in the future.
> +
Oops. This refers to the "--unpacked" option that pack-objects takes,
not repack. I agree that mentioning "--unpacked" is too low-level a
detail for this user-facing documentation, so even something like:
When `repack` passes `--unpacked` down to `pack-objects` (which is
the default) ...
would be too much detail for this man page.
I am very happy with the patch here as an alternative.
Thanks,
Taylor
