From: Junio C Hamano Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2025 17:46:43 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] refs: add a '--required' flag to 'git refs optimize' Message-ID: In-Reply-To: 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. Choosing a phrase around "check" is better, I would think.