On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 1:43 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Would it make sense to break the assumption that --max-cruft-size == > > --max-pack-size and perhaps rename the former? I think the problem is > > that the two imply different things (one is a minimum, the other a > > maximum), and thus really should be different values. E.g. > > --combine-cruft-below-size that is set to e.g. half of > > --max-pack-size, and then you can continue combining cruft packs > > together until they do go above the cruft threshold, while avoiding > > actually exceeding the pack size threshold? > > With below-size and max-size set to say 180 and 200 respectively, an > attempt to combine the crufts may end up filling a cruft pack to 170 > but the smallest of the remaining cruft may weigh 40, which means > including it would cause the max-size to be exceeded. In such a > scenario, there may not be a solution to satisfy given constraints, > i.e. go above the below-size without stay below the max-size. > > So I am not sure if the approach would really solve much. > > Other than that a separate names, especially losing "max" from the > threshold that really does not mean "max", would solve the confusion > that comes from naming, that is. --max-pack-size is a constraint. --combine-cruft-below-size is not. Think particularly of the case where the user doesn't even have any cruft packs yet and has only accumulated a little bit of cruft. That option is merely a guide post to say that if it's smaller than that size, then feel free to keep trying to add to it (so long as it doesn't violate constraints such as --max-pack-size).
