Re: [PATCH 1/2] sequencer: run auto maintenance once a rebase is done

Hi Thomas

On 04/09/2026 08:53, Thomas Bachem via GitGitGadget wrote:

From: Thomas Bachem <redacted>

The apply backend runs "git maintenance run --auto" from
finish_rebase() once it has applied its patches, and so does "git am"
on its own. The merge backend reaches finish_rebase() only on the
paths both backends share in builtin/rebase.c: an abort, a branch
that is already up to date, and a fast-forward. A rebase that
replays commits never runs maintenance at its end. It creates most
of its commits in process, and only the "git commit" it spawns for a
resolved, reworded or squashed pick, the "git merge" a "rebase -r"
spawns for an octopus merge or with a strategy, and whatever an exec
command runs kick maintenance off, in the middle of the rebase. Run
it where the sequencer finishes a rebase, after the autostash is
applied, as finish_rebase() does, so that both backends end a rebase
the same way, and so that the next commit can keep it out of the
commands a rebase spawns. builtin/rebase.c could run it instead once
run_sequencer_rebase() returns, but the sequencer is where the rebase
finishes, and the autostash and the state cleanup that surround the
run in finish_rebase() are there as well. prepare_auto_maintenance()
closes the object database before the spawn, so the sequencer holds
nothing a repack would need to replace.

It would be nice if the two backends shared more of the cleanup code, I 
don't think there is a good reason for them not to share the code that 
copies notes, applies the autostash and switches HEAD back to the 
branch, but that is outside the scope of this change. So adding a 
separate call to the sequencer code seems reasonable. I wonder if we 
should do this for cherry-pick and revert as well; certainly cherry-pick 
can create a lot of loose objects and does not necessarily call "git 
commit". If cherry-pick does call "git commit" and trigger background 
maintenance it is susceptible to the same problems as rebase, so we 
should probably treat them the same.

Thanks

Phillip