From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [104.130.231.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 684E51DF26E for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2025 06:08:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=104.130.231.41 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760076519; cv=none; b=h+3pdw4wNBS4y5plxZLTqXzEugW1xQaJ5mNMUu5y+aUSXDtffKafdVCxcDzYB1sb5dL+GFJfoB6fbUSJ3SvwepJC9FdEEb5HbuQRESwZrV8plvqgGSsLUWR8YynT1KD/KNqXdd3fjnQbrhg86ttabGjTCX2i7nzsBfuQ/qfQbK0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760076519; c=relaxed/simple; bh=yx/C5VnjKEmsN5e2GtzVpzhBtwvyPQNG6zzywuBL7Sk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=TVNIS4x9d+ue8Mqtc5M05gx3J/s3UqeuWRDrul5RC+en+CDOpwfN9Hd/prEiriDhpFdhBRtmftKVH7DqVOJK0OjfoSiYG9iZopqnzwHpYCNtRt8tWJpfgkpbIa1zGDGRYZu6Z6mlWSCQXHoRXxMdqr2z3ejUBgsJAFSnlIMrsHk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=peff.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=peff.net header.i=@peff.net header.b=RcgEGW/Y; arc=none smtp.client-ip=104.130.231.41 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=peff.net header.i=@peff.net header.b="RcgEGW/Y" Received: (qmail 182351 invoked by uid 109); 10 Oct 2025 06:08:38 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=peff.net; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=20240930; bh=yx/C5VnjKEmsN5e2GtzVpzhBtwvyPQNG6zzywuBL7Sk=; b=RcgEGW/YYjseE/rhp/GtlfKYYAPTk6IX07/RjyffpGTPFAXCY7Lf+Q+TMgLrNop8b570dlUEdHiDuz9ISm6ak5hzQjjwDrOr5bS+4NE6JJQS51vm4dClCRV0j6EwsDjcB3QIFizYuZYLt8wgZics3Z0kPu63KgHGvAv8QX3p5kfb4kbGansIZ7xCbkNcG0EdcEQkrmaxEay3WZeTLGGGZY7muRLDz1rBNAHBlqBKVX7dOagqEGV6HaFLZfzwHLNP4w7fjoyyjKrrtHf8E0KN9/eybiK8RTDdTP1KkrZ8Fd6xTyRROAve5MafWP2p6xACvJ1V7tLl1ukD9ol/R3yy8g== Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Fri, 10 Oct 2025 06:08:38 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 283485 invoked by uid 111); 10 Oct 2025 06:08:37 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 10 Oct 2025 02:08:37 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2025 02:08:36 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Taylor Blau Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano , Elijah Newren , Patrick Steinhardt , Justin Tobler Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/49] repack: remove 'existing_packs' API from the builtin Message-ID: <20251010060836.GG1965904@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 06:08:23PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > --- a/repack.h > +++ b/repack.h > @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@ > #define REPACK_H > > #include "list-objects-filter-options.h" > +#include "string-list.h" > > struct pack_objects_args { > char *window; > @@ -31,4 +32,38 @@ void pack_objects_args_release(struct pack_objects_args *args); > void repack_remove_redundant_pack(struct repository *repo, const char *dir_name, > const char *base_name); > > +struct repository; > +struct packed_git; > + > +struct existing_packs { > + struct repository *repo; > + struct string_list kept_packs; > + struct string_list non_kept_packs; > + struct string_list cruft_packs; > +}; Earlier, I saw remove_redundant_pack() got namespaced with a "repack_" prefix. Which I think makes sense, since it's a pretty generic name and the symbol now has global visibility. But none of this existing_packs stuff got the same treatment. I don't know how much it matters. I certainly have no plans to call something existing_packs elsewhere in the code, but I do wonder if the naming should make it more clear this is all repack-related. -Peff