Theodore Ts'o <[email protected]> writes: > .... I've never been fond of the "git repack -A" behavior > where it can generate huge numbers of loose files. I'd much prefer it > if the other objects ended up in a separate pack file, and then some > other provision made for nuking that pack file some time later....
Yes, a "cruft pack" that holds unreachable object has been discussed a few times recently on list, and I do agree that it is a desirable thing to have in the longer run. What's tricky is to devise a way to allow us to salvage objects that are placed in a cruft pack because they are accessed recently, proving themselves to be no longer crufts. It could be that a good way to resurrect them is to explode them to loose form when they are accessed out of a cruft pack. We need to worry about interactions with read-only users if we go that route, but with the current "explode unreachable to loose, touch their mtime when they are accessed" scheme ends up ignoring accesses from read-only users that cannot update mtime, so it might not be too bad.
