Brandon Casey wrote:
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Brandon Casey <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
<-a>
-create a new pack containing all objects required by the repository
including those accessible through alternates, but excluding objects
in _local_ packs with .keep
I have a feeling that it is debatable if this "fattening to dissociate
from alternates" is what people want.
I'm not sure I understand you here.
Andreas has suggested previously that 'repack -a' should pack everything,
including objects in packs with .keep. Is that what you mean?
With my current understanding it seems that that would muddy the semantics
of repack. If -a does not honor packs with .keep, then would it be intuitive
to expect that adding -l (i.e. exclude alternate packed objects) _would_
honor .keep?
Only -d should honor .keep, imo. .keep-files is nothing about "don't copy
objects from this file" and all about "never delete this file".
The only muddying comes from you, who decided that .keep-files should
have impact on anything else than deleting the protected pack. Before that,
.keep files had a clear semantic, and repack's documentation was correct.
How do you explain .keep-files now? "protects pack-files that will forever
be used"? Then why the hell is it called ".keep" instead of "eternal"?
--
Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@xxxxxx
OP5 AB www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
