From: Andreas Ericsson Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 08:12:09 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] pack-objects: honor '.keep' files Message-ID: <4913F859.8070500@op5.se> In-Reply-To: Brandon Casey wrote: > Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Brandon Casey 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@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231