Derrick Stolee <stolee@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 7/18/24 5:57 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> "Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> Here is an issue I noticed while exploring issues with my local copy of a >>> large monorepo. I was intending to show some engineers how nice the objects >>> were maintained by background maintenance, but saw hundreds of small >>> pack-files that were up to two months old. This time matched when I upgraded >>> to the microsoft/git fork that included the 2.45.0 release of Git. >> I almost said "wow, perfect timing on the -rc1 day", but then >> realized that this is not a regression during _this_ cycle, but a >> cycle ago. > > I almost waited until after the release, but I wanted to put the > information out there just in case you were interested in taking it > into 2.46.0 or were planning on a 2.45.3. Yup, thanks but this is not exactly a repository breaking data corruption bug, and did not look ultra urgent. Especially if we want to pursue a solution that helps both expiring stale packs better (which is what you are restoring) and making better delta chain selection (which may be what you are losing) at the same time, such a change could become a source of data corruption bug, so I'd prefer to see it started early in a cycle, rather as a last-minute "let's fix this too". Thanks.
