On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 08:01:01AM +0100, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 10:01:57PM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 02:06:55PM +0100, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > > Fix the bug by splitting out the "--pack-loose-unreachable" and only > > > making it depend on the second and third condition. Like this, loose > > > unreachable objects will be packed regardless of any preexisting > > > packfiles. > > > > Makes sense. My only question would be whether there are any gotchas > > inside pack-objects about using --pack-loose-unreachable without > > --keep-unreachable (since the two were up until now always used > > together). > > > > It was added by e26a8c4721. And looking over that patch, I don't see > > anything that would let the options be used independently. So this seems > > like a good solution. > > You probably meant "I don't see anything that would *not* let the > options be used independently." But yeah, they don't seem to require one > another. Whoops, yes. Last minute rephrasing strikes again. :) -Peff
