From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 307F31FA17 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 22:15:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233630AbhA2WPC (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jan 2021 17:15:02 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:56758 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233595AbhA2WO1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jan 2021 17:14:27 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 354151085FC; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 17:13:45 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=bO9k70h6u/u9ffWq/LYZsAhcmXw=; b=jg8URt aZrX0zvUsYeABrjIT+KNU9sBd0OjtFffXFBPXchV+6ZJq7Y1rBA0D1yC4RL/BGIK uEZJOq5uPxAMXOddHodfIkzbEXJgApNjjyG1/D7c31EnJGbNEVgiecJScCkOuXA3 /6Q3kcAEXvR2VcRAtBg9tTqvKmBASVKcKKbq8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=EcPOTCNT9q0YxyvKZxHz7q5rSsMC2Evz QtHnUUrlw0x74gGcutUbA67w8kicmNqYnDrvB++nzUsahGcD8h4JFDo+ffr2Mt+P 11Ne8SpuR5sF0iQviIwImIhzulFfylBmLgf2ebUBvwXiBCciTKAh3APr4rvUf8YS bxlootT1gqA= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EF021085FB; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 17:13:45 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 501701085F8; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 17:13:41 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Taylor Blau , git@vger.kernel.org, dstolee@microsoft.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/10] builtin/pack-objects.c: learn '--assume-kept-packs-closed' References: <2da42e9ca26c9ef914b8b044047d505f00a27e20.1611098616.git.me@ttaylorr.com> Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 14:13:39 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Jeff King's message of "Fri, 29 Jan 2021 15:25:37 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 3E795D80-627F-11EB-B8C2-E43E2BB96649-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: >> I wonder if we need our assumption that the union of kept packs is >> closed under reachability to be specified as an option. If the option is >> passed, then we stop the traversal as soon as we hit an object in the >> frozen packs. If not passed, then we do a full traversal but pass >> --honor-pack-keep to drop out objects in the frozen packs after the >> fact. >> >> Thoughts? > > I'm confused. I thought the whole idea was to pass it as an option (the > user telling Git "I know these packs are supposed to be closed; trust > me")? Yes, that is how I read these patches, and it sounds like an assumption that we can make under many scenarios/repacking strategies.