From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-b3-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-b3-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.154]) (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 8447335948 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2025 17:46:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.154 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760464008; cv=none; b=k3MvokX8DS/bwsnaf/fgTn7ir44+hbXleJ38x1MTPItEuFQDkghVE1UoDHBVUb7OJWxpnUv+ZAxBTgD6y7kn2hPB1VVybqgn0VFv4IbLC3m6t7ePip/x0vO7FNgRjAUVhpzYSy5ufn7kCAkE7cVvzeVSd+EvwxzOTIUApn3X9mI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760464008; c=relaxed/simple; bh=h0dsT7vE3bvd1EkDgyTeLShcBnLEV/MUZflDCXH4xos=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=qwkT1vsqyxlJtvghTHOQgkPrI4lP1TEZ/Ikx3guQMGgiKIji+Jna1sU/6Qo20QFnVOqGMKSOkNkbNvJ6BCXJ55bzA8PZnSGPYDh67Qpy6VyDKCph9RJmYH6pDefJoNZ/N9kUax6MkPynGqgVKn7bCKfQ3UDSCUAptTGesnq9Ctk= 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=blOo0sOF; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=vfFFvZtf; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.154 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="blOo0sOF"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="vfFFvZtf" Received: from phl-compute-06.internal (phl-compute-06.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailfhigh.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D6477A00D1; Tue, 14 Oct 2025 13:46:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-02 ([10.202.2.161]) by phl-compute-06.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 14 Oct 2025 13:46:45 -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=fm1; t=1760464005; x=1760550405; bh=NsFE93OCeY mW/PFx95Oj8npalL7rHACdk7SZZNJEiLY=; b=blOo0sOFdh8YwyWFmM9ty/Aa8p v7hUrPugn4gCqdnMkRd7qSF52Px+q7NOKI6iPPTknM9zW2j+nBr3pZ6XOAODfazK 2pq64Py24sD3Nis+ik4NiSD7Y9F41HdcqTyh9E07xV0H8je4jZ1NXAm/6WmqLCSv V9OUTfFvbM9iYVGePo6ETFFTuEbBcIsI59Uc6Soy2rocV8C5Nu1r8rSH09x2A6D6 26rJ9+dv5xsdkjvk/0g8Sfl09h8F/e9BeyHfrINJhi+M5g6d+3BA3BXoIaWL2P2b jQXePd59VIFaf7fV68qcczTD5gBUGhPOFAPaQRw7CJNu1dAiHzcgDwW5qOjA== 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=fm2; t= 1760464005; x=1760550405; bh=NsFE93OCeYmW/PFx95Oj8npalL7rHACdk7S ZZNJEiLY=; b=vfFFvZtfsknxff6jv7NNCMXxkCTfpEqNlmiAxlngSTO3wDVdlMj COPf/2r1h0naMkNE22Z3kdRswnpeanOfgIDKu0XKr+wCuS7ZqgX4cHuFRlggw5NB MKTzcRyeQBrzNXoy8ZlsX9DWEw7ml09aWg7gWU7kwfqYqEGlShvLGQDlOQxiz46J aep2HIes0OeUqnnZVB3kZx2f/VPriS+6QL0qkkl60KRZ5nYoy2BO4zkyhUVX1LU4 Ubq1LqPFPZWCWYY4w6rJk6Ulu238E80lWixwGWn40LVThkslUipIYYE5rICCOIC4 ErmTimWM1Sg9Abk982hjSJghoZo7BwupmlQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeffedrtdeggdduvdduudejucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceu rghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujf gurhephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgesthdtofdttdertdenucfhrhhomheplfhunhhiohcu vecujfgrmhgrnhhouceoghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepieekueefhfetvdfftdegfeekhfffgefgfeeivddugeffgfffffevvedvieel ffdunecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepgh hithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepgedpmhhouggvpehs mhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepkhgrrhhthhhikhdrudekkeesghhmrghilhdrtghomh dprhgtphhtthhopehpshesphhkshdrihhmpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithesvhhgvghrrdhk vghrnhgvlhdrohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 14 Oct 2025 13:46:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Karthik Nayak Cc: Patrick Steinhardt , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] refs: add a '--required' flag to 'git refs optimize' In-Reply-To: (Karthik Nayak's message of "Tue, 14 Oct 2025 11:08:56 -0400") References: <20251010-562-add-option-to-check-if-reference-backend-needs-repacking-v1-0-c7962be584fa@gmail.com> <20251010-562-add-option-to-check-if-reference-backend-needs-repacking-v1-9-c7962be584fa@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2025 10:46:43 -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 Karthik Nayak writes: > Junio C Hamano writes: > >> Junio C Hamano writes: >> >>> Perhaps "--check-" followed by a word specific to what we are trying >>> to achieve (e.g., if we are trying to see if auto-compaction is >>> necessary, "--check-for-auto" "check for auto compaction")? I >>> dunno. >> >> After reading what you did in the previou step, I am reasonably sure >> "required" is a wrong word to use, with or without other words like >> "check". Semantically it is similar to the should_pack_refs() check >> that we use for pack-refs even before "optimize" came. We expect it >> to answer this question cheaply: are we better off if we repacked, >> or can we go on without repacking for now? It is not about "are we >> performing so poorly that we MUST optimize now?" > > I agree '--required' isn't the best name, and like we discussed > '--dry-run' wouldn't be either since that would imply that the work is > being done but not persisted. > > I was leaning towards '--check', which is simple. But It might be nicer > to be verbose here and simply add something like '--is-worthwhile'. > > Being verbose here is okay, since it will only be used sparingly and > specifically by those who require such a use case. Nah, "worthwhile" is relative and it would be less meaningful without expressing for what goal we are judging how it is worthwhile to do. Choosing a phrase around "check" is better, I would think.