Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] pack-objects: generate cruft packs at most one object over threshold

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mar 12, 2025, 20:43 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq5xkex9md.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <CABPp-BH0rbieCV4Z11pHOX-mwrtEO-FPNdywV0P5HxXnusdRKQ@mail.gmail.com>

Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> writes:

Show 8 quoted lines

> Would it make sense to break the assumption that --max-cruft-size ==
> --max-pack-size and perhaps rename the former?  I think the problem is
> that the two imply different things (one is a minimum, the other a
> maximum), and thus really should be different values.  E.g.
> --combine-cruft-below-size that is set to e.g. half of
> --max-pack-size, and then you can continue combining cruft packs
> together until they do go above the cruft threshold, while avoiding
> actually exceeding the pack size threshold?

With below-size and max-size set to say 180 and 200 respectively, an attempt to combine the crufts may end up filling a cruft pack to 170 but the smallest of the remaining cruft may weigh 40, which means including it would cause the max-size to be exceeded. In such a scenario, there may not be a solution to satisfy given constraints, i.e. go above the below-size without stay below the max-size.

So I am not sure if the approach would really solve much.

Other than that a separate names, especially losing "max" from the threshold that really does not mean "max", would solve the confusion that comes from naming, that is.