From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 00:41:03 GMT
Subject: Re: Keeping unreachable objects in a separate pack instead of loose?
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1206112024110.23555@xanadu.home>
In-Reply-To: <20120611222308.GA10476@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On Mon, 11 Jun 2012, Jeff King wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 06:14:39PM -0400, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> 
> > One last thought: if a sysadmin is really hard up for space, (and if
> > the cruft objects include some really big sound or video files) one
> > advantage of labelling the cruft packs explicitly is that someone who
> > really needs the space could potentially find the oldest cruft files
> > and delete them, since they would be tagged for easy findability.
> 
> No! That's exactly what I was worried about with the name. It is _not_
> safe to do so. It's only safe after you have done a full repack to
> rescue any non-cruft objects.

To make it "safe", the cruft packs would have to be searchable for 
object retrieval, but not during object creation.  That nuance would 
affect the core code in subtle ways and I'm not sure if that would be 
worth it ... just for the safe handling of cruft.


Nicolas