From: Karthik Nayak Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2025 08:19:32 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] refs: add a '--required' flag to 'git refs optimize' Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Junio C Hamano writes: > Karthik Nayak writes: > >> Junio C Hamano writes: >> >>> Junio C Hamano writes: >>> >>>> Perhaps "--check-" followed by a word specific to what we are trying >>>> to achieve (e.g., if we are trying to see if auto-compaction is >>>> necessary, "--check-for-auto" "check for auto compaction")? I >>>> dunno. >>> >>> After reading what you did in the previou step, I am reasonably sure >>> "required" is a wrong word to use, with or without other words like >>> "check". Semantically it is similar to the should_pack_refs() check >>> that we use for pack-refs even before "optimize" came. We expect it >>> to answer this question cheaply: are we better off if we repacked, >>> or can we go on without repacking for now? It is not about "are we >>> performing so poorly that we MUST optimize now?" >> >> I agree '--required' isn't the best name, and like we discussed >> '--dry-run' wouldn't be either since that would imply that the work is >> being done but not persisted. >> >> I was leaning towards '--check', which is simple. But It might be nicer >> to be verbose here and simply add something like '--is-worthwhile'. >> >> Being verbose here is okay, since it will only be used sparingly and >> specifically by those who require such a use case. > > Nah, "worthwhile" is relative and it would be less meaningful > without expressing for what goal we are judging how it is worthwhile > to do. > I see what you mean. > Choosing a phrase around "check" is better, I would think. How about simply `--check`. Since the flag can be used with other existing flags, it would make more sense to do git refs optimize --all --auto --check git refs optimize --check git refs optimize --all --check I will send in a new version around this and we can discuss further on top of that!