From: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2026 13:51:59 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] builtin/maintenance: improve heuristic for "rerere gc"
Message-ID: <15a488b2-b4ae-4ac8-8cb3-f06ef5bbb52b@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20260904-b4-pks-maintenance-rerere-gc-heuristic-v2-0-b1691121fe1c@pks.im>

On 9/4/2026 3:03 AM, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:

> Range-diff versus v1:

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my nitpicks. I think
the end result is a bit cleaner, and the patches have some more
clarity, too. 
> 1:  343dbf1c0c ! 1:  1b0b7a7b9a rerere: extract logic to determine whether entries are stale
>     -@@ rerere.c: void rerere_gc(struct repository *r, struct string_list *rr)
>     - 		for (id.variant = 0, id.collection = rr_dir;
>     - 		     id.variant < id.collection->status_nr;
>     - 		     id.variant++) {
>     --			prune_one(&id, cutoff_resolve, cutoff_noresolve);
>     -+			if (rerere_id_is_stale(&id, cutoff_resolve, cutoff_noresolve))
>     -+				unlink_rr_item(&id);
>     - 			if (id.collection->status[id.variant])
>     - 				now_empty = 0;
>     - 		}

I like that this diff is no longer in the patch. Thanks!

> 2:  c8a52f0663 ! 2:  1ceb798cdf builtin/maintenance: improve heuristic for "rerere gc"

>     -+	if (limit <= 0)
>     -+		return limit < 0;
>     ++	if (!limit)
>     ++		return 0; /* never prune */
>     ++	if (limit < 0)
>     ++		return 1; /* always prune */

The extra comments are helpful here, too!

>     -+	return rerere_gc_estimate(the_repository, limit) >= (size_t)limit;
>     ++	return rerere_gc_needed(the_repository, (size_t)limit);

This looks much cleaner, thanks!

This version LGTM.
-Stolee