On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 05:49:35PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote:

On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 04:13:31PM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/builtin/gc.c b/builtin/gc.c
index aaff0bae15..9739bb0ea2 100644
--- a/builtin/gc.c
+++ b/builtin/gc.c

@@ -1878,12 +1878,31 @@ static const struct maintenance_strategy incremental_strategy = {
 	},
 };

+static const struct maintenance_strategy geometric_strategy = {
+	.tasks = {
+		[TASK_COMMIT_GRAPH].type = MAINTENANCE_TYPE_SCHEDULED | MAINTENANCE_TYPE_MANUAL,
+		[TASK_COMMIT_GRAPH].schedule = SCHEDULE_HOURLY,
+		[TASK_GEOMETRIC_REPACK].type = MAINTENANCE_TYPE_SCHEDULED | MAINTENANCE_TYPE_MANUAL,
+		[TASK_GEOMETRIC_REPACK].schedule = SCHEDULE_DAILY,
+		[TASK_PACK_REFS].type = MAINTENANCE_TYPE_SCHEDULED | MAINTENANCE_TYPE_MANUAL,
+		[TASK_PACK_REFS].schedule = SCHEDULE_DAILY,
+		[TASK_RERERE_GC].type = MAINTENANCE_TYPE_SCHEDULED | MAINTENANCE_TYPE_MANUAL,
+		[TASK_RERERE_GC].schedule = SCHEDULE_WEEKLY,
+		[TASK_REFLOG_EXPIRE].type = MAINTENANCE_TYPE_SCHEDULED | MAINTENANCE_TYPE_MANUAL,
+		[TASK_REFLOG_EXPIRE].schedule = SCHEDULE_WEEKLY,
+		[TASK_WORKTREE_PRUNE].type = MAINTENANCE_TYPE_SCHEDULED | MAINTENANCE_TYPE_MANUAL,
+		[TASK_WORKTREE_PRUNE].schedule = SCHEDULE_WEEKLY,
+	},
+};
+

What you wrote here all makes sense to me, so I don't have any comments
on the technical content of 'geometric_strategy'.

As an aside, I wonder if we should use a nested designated initializer
here? It seems a little cleaner to me than doing:

    .tasks = {
        [TASK_FOO].type = ...,
        [TASK_FOO].schedule = ...,
    }

It's inconsistent with the style of the rest of this file, so if you did
make this change I'd suggest adding a prerequisite change that modifies
existing strategies to match the new style. But you could imagine
something like the following on top:

It's more verbose, but it indeed reads a lot nicer. I'll take your
suggestion, thanks!

Patrick