Re: [PATCH 1/2] maintenance: account for promisor pack geometry

[Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>]

On Tue, Aug 11, 2026 at 10:49:49AM -0500, Taylor Blau wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2026 at 12:01:23PM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> > > So I am not sure that I understand your concern here, but please let me
> > > know if I am missing some aspect of it.
> >
> > The concern is that it's quite unlikely that both the geometric and
> > non-geometric sequence will merge all packs together at the same point
> > in time. Consequently, we'll never hit the case where we perform an
> > all-into-one pack to prune unreachable objects, and that may cause us to
> > never prune objects at all.
> >
> > So what I'm wondering is whether we should be a bit more clever about
> > that and perform an all-into-one repack under a new condition, like for
> > example when the objects we're about to repack exceed a certain
> > percentage of the repository size.
> >
> > Hope that clarifies it a bit :)
> 
> Ah, I see what you're saying. We should still be OK here as the goal of
> geometric repacking is to converge both the promisor and non-promisor
> packs towards a single pack, at which point we would do an all-into-one
> repack.
> 
> If the two are perfectly out of phase, then this change would prevent us
> from running all-into-one maintenance. But that does not seem like a
> likely scenario, and the behavior here should be a strict improvement in
> the meantime otherwise.

Yeah, I tend to agree. It's heuristics anyway, and from my point of view
it's something that we can iterate on going forward.

Thanks!

Patrick