From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-a8-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-a8-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.159]) (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 58ED81EB5DD for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 20:43:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.159 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741812239; cv=none; b=CtZNb4TRZ17VZEP4T4KGtuAaCPrbnbd14RTB9h1v0RqADPFlZcE6rfT4byey1A8PKMN0pZL8LmDASxpQxefMZxqZjU8noglxjQnWBePioaaHluqT1yPhd8fLBWw99orK31oLLFr4jfaX5mDJB5ts/izA8APmXa10LFLireEajnY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741812239; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Rbq6ji8CJRa2C6i+A/HYhXYYIVf6k4vApqPwPX5+RwU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=N58NOtZxQPZ90EnRSyGHb68zukX3TPBXxi7BOpzwAI3+YEkA7zni2eDTUym8RzkbdLFsMZNmni6FltyC2DrzxdTVRwaHnWL12nt5NJbbMMvHI1WenDVk0IJM9KHQVQlpx0UxVkRncSqER5Voz8TmeIuntHed/m56S98cnLqqz5I= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=eTd3uIq8; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=TqEVPtJQ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.159 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="eTd3uIq8"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="TqEVPtJQ" Received: from phl-compute-06.internal (phl-compute-06.phl.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailfhigh.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A46B114011F; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 16:43:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-01 ([10.202.2.160]) by phl-compute-06.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 12 Mar 2025 16:43:56 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1741812236; x=1741898636; bh=mOYOy2qBcz Ze63BdMNKy0yJyrh0YMtWbRoi6WuXVH1c=; b=eTd3uIq893v0kOVbUOYwYcX8C4 C7WJaL5iCud4N7/pa3A/7izMUu2x/Np3t0GI26JeJilLuOZOm5tx/hhnQLnmydGV 95DcwGQFWjejrpF1mhzw2yZmj6i+j+phsSN09BaaR0tmmCllfy4Vn67ECoIfwvPn GmedUbpIZKnlCeQFS4zoCYOPerLxnaIZb3t7hvTlliFifRw3YkfGJUHdqlYBki1S h+M7TS1TxNYM842UTxQdhc3W41MlCkdta/DfJcjkcNZ8YcSujPimHJolPSf+l6sV geLIWGmg3zJwzruYQ8dZ1uujvdpmtNczViP1SihTGKnqXKs4/DkGMznqTH0g== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t= 1741812236; x=1741898636; bh=mOYOy2qBczZe63BdMNKy0yJyrh0YMtWbRoi 6WuXVH1c=; b=TqEVPtJQB6e0+FF93BnkGWiydDbzcfS9SJhLOlQ0/j5bzvZOJTD k16GjZlkvizUv35bzID3aN0AP4LimBFQoHHm47NHEMfYPhTNgGBoYAhdyohqMW/s OIXW5CsWS45s9pqBg4VWpH2n581g1kEMUSZoZLgXk/ATRwLWr5hbKqODM97qLWkW mlmJYziRnPhJGs6a4ULgaLESeMNchv3GZ8hC/aB+otVQmknwnAxX2Hjce3HPk+Gc SJucuXo04Slv+4/kDEqRpUzsXHYNSkDT8vyjzgWdWMIeTGrUSy2Lmpsb3HI72Ggu boYrwRbZrGjippalcSLtWtkGT814Vc7PCiA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefvddrtddtgdduvdeitdejucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggv pdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpih gvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgesthdtredttder tdenucfhrhhomheplfhunhhiohcuvecujfgrmhgrnhhouceoghhithhsthgvrhesphhosg hogidrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepfeevteetjeehueegffelvdetieevffeu feejleeuffetiefggfeftdfhfeeigeeinecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrg hrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomhdpnhgspghr tghpthhtohepiedpmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepnhgvfihrvghnse hgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepmhgvsehtthgrhihlohhrrhdrtghomhdprhgt phhtthhopehgihhtsehvghgvrhdrkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepphgvfh hfsehpvghffhdrnhgvthdprhgtphhtthhopehpshesphhkshdrihhmpdhrtghpthhtohep ghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 16:43:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Elijah Newren Cc: Taylor Blau , git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King , Patrick Steinhardt Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] pack-objects: generate cruft packs at most one object over threshold In-Reply-To: (Elijah Newren's message of "Wed, 12 Mar 2025 12:13:10 -0700") References: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 13:43:54 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Elijah Newren writes: > Would it make sense to break the assumption that --max-cruft-size == > --max-pack-size and perhaps rename the former? I think the problem is > that the two imply different things (one is a minimum, the other a > maximum), and thus really should be different values. E.g. > --combine-cruft-below-size that is set to e.g. half of > --max-pack-size, and then you can continue combining cruft packs > together until they do go above the cruft threshold, while avoiding > actually exceeding the pack size threshold? With below-size and max-size set to say 180 and 200 respectively, an attempt to combine the crufts may end up filling a cruft pack to 170 but the smallest of the remaining cruft may weigh 40, which means including it would cause the max-size to be exceeded. In such a scenario, there may not be a solution to satisfy given constraints, i.e. go above the below-size without stay below the max-size. So I am not sure if the approach would really solve much. Other than that a separate names, especially losing "max" from the threshold that really does not mean "max", would solve the confusion that comes from naming, that is.