Re: [PATCH v6 20/21] gc: automatically write commit-graph files

>> The commit-graph file is a very helpful feature for speeding up git
>> operations. In order to make it more useful, make it possible to
>> write the commit-graph file during standard garbage collection
>> operations.
>>
>> Add a 'gc.commitGraph' config setting that triggers writing a
>> commit-graph file after any non-trivial 'git gc' command. Defaults to
>> false while the commit-graph feature matures. We specifically do not
>> want to have this on by default until the commit-graph feature is fully
>> integrated with history-modifying features like shallow clones.
> So I played around with an earlier version of this patch series a
> while ago... and as I looked into my gitconfig today I was surprised
> to have both 'core.commitGraph' and 'gc.commitGraph' config variables
> set.  When I looked into it I came across this email from Ævar:
>
>    https://public-inbox.org/git/87fu3peni2.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/
>
>    > Other than the question if 'gc.commitGraph' and 'core.commitGraph'
>    > should be independent config variables, and the exact wording of the
>    > git-gc docs, it looks good to me.
>
>    Sans doc errors you pointed out in other places (you need to set
>    core.commitGraph so it's read at all), I think it's very useful to have
>    these split up. It's simliar to pack.useBitmaps & pack.writeBitmaps.
>
> I think the comparison with pack bitmaps makes a lot of sense and I
> have to say that I really like those 'useBitmaps' and 'writeBitmaps'
> variable names, because it's clear right away which one is which,
> without consulting the documentation.  I think having 'useCommitGraph'
> and 'writeCommitGraph' variables would be a lot better than the same
> variable name in two different sections, and I'm sure that then I
> wouldn't have been caught off guard.