Re: [PATCH v3] builtin/pack-objects.c: introduce `pack.extraCruftTips`

From: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Date: May 3, 2023, 23:50 UTC
Message-ID: <ZFLzC1slvOAD6udn@nand.local>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqjzxpm172.fsf@gitster.g>

On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 04:42:41PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

> Storing them inside cruft packs may be a reasonable choice to make
> today, in the sense that among various object storage mechansim, the
> cruft pack mechanism may be the best fit in today's system, but it
> does not have to stay that way.  Naming the variable to specify the
> hooks with name "cruft" in them would make it hard to explain once
> we find an even better storage mechanism to store such a "not really
> used but want to keep" objects.

I dunno. I thought about this too, and I get your argument, but I am not convinced that a future mechanism would lend itself well to keeping around additional sets of objects in the same way cruft packs do. In that case, we would prefer having called this `pack.extraCruftTips` and relegating it to the cruft pack system.

We could make this more generic, and extend support to the legacy prune-via-loose mechanism. But like I said to Peff, I have a hard time imagining anybody using it.

So, I'm torn. I see what you're saying, but I think I still tend to fall on the side of leaving it as-is.

Thanks, Taylor