Re: [PATCH] enable core.fsyncObjectFiles by default

Theodore Ts'o [off-list ref] 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.