Re: fetching packs and storing them as packs

Shawn Pearce [off-list ref] writes:

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Shawn Pearce [off-list ref] writes:

So how about pack-X{40}.volatile that marks an eligible one for
repacking?

Then anyone who has an existing pack would need to create that
file first as soon as they got this newer version of Git... not
very upgrade friendly if you ask me.

Ah, I mixed things up completely.  You're right.  Having .keep
leaves that pack as is (and lack of matching .keep causes it to
be repacked -- people do not have .keep so everything should be
repacked as before).

quoted

Then we can make "pack-objects --unpacked" to pretend the ones
with corresponding .volatile as if the objects in them are
loose, without breaking backward compatibility.

Currently I'm changing --unpacked= to match without needing quoting.
I'm allowing it to match an exact pack name or if it starts with
"pack-" and matches the last 50 ("pack-X{40}.pack") of the pack name.

I think is a very sane thing to do (I should have done that from
the beginning).  I do not like "the last 50", but I do not have
objection to make it take either full path or just the filename
under objects/pack/ (so not "the last 50" but "filename w/o
slash").

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

Shawn Pearce [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

quoted

Then we can make "pack-objects --unpacked" to pretend the ones
with corresponding .volatile as if the objects in them are
loose, without breaking backward compatibility.

Currently I'm changing --unpacked= to match without needing quoting.
I'm allowing it to match an exact pack name or if it starts with
"pack-" and matches the last 50 ("pack-X{40}.pack") of the pack name.

I think is a very sane thing to do (I should have done that from
the beginning).  I do not like "the last 50", but I do not have
objection to make it take either full path or just the filename
under objects/pack/ (so not "the last 50" but "filename w/o
slash").

OK.  I coded it with the last 50 but will rewrite that commit
without as the code is slightly shorter that way.  :-)

--