From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1D4F1F97E for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2018 02:02:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727016AbeKYMwG (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Nov 2018 07:52:06 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:64343 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726722AbeKYMwF (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Nov 2018 07:52:05 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EF4D3C1CC; Sat, 24 Nov 2018 21:02:10 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=APBbu7onLdj7C+X01NHa6ezhWbk=; b=sRygok DL/btWfgnUX+FsZTopkiJ9NAtQLQNbDcbSJvEVg4b2jrEquWRP0dVST0gyUeMnZI j/6So5PmGIy1p/Qyhoox1iR2Kf4TaI9zXMuk3qazH0eh9ikyrZild+eXQ/IumyiG qilXlcJgZPorf1NpXlWtIdqi1Edg1Y/FOYmeE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=AF6AiVubK0kzdaF7LqeFPkB2i/JhvP0M wSUft5FxUSSxUffboMYiepyNAB8aO/dFHPfIKdTdha/Fj5BCBdEHkmf9bYb3Jshj 9CXFAI+YvruvaRYkN2w9hoc3rf0kJgjKKawype6eJvqtcnHyT+UhmwagzdwqCnUd igJtSQV8E+0= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 779063C1CB; Sat, 24 Nov 2018 21:02:10 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.155.68.112]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 898F33C1CA; Sat, 24 Nov 2018 21:02:07 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , git@vger.kernel.org, =?utf-8?Q?Ren=C3=A9?= Scharfe Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Nov 2018, #06; Wed, 21) References: <87muq2zoy9.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> <20181122175259.GC22123@sigill.intra.peff.net> <87efbd0xix.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> <20181124120950.GB19257@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 11:02:05 +0900 In-Reply-To: <20181124120950.GB19257@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Sat, 24 Nov 2018 07:09:50 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 1CCC35BA-F056-11E8-AFCD-F5C31241B9FE-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > I do also think in the long run we should be fixing the "unreachable > always become loose" issues. I think I've seen an idea of collecting them into a garbage pack floated for at least a few times here. What are the downsides? We no longer will know when these unreachable ones were last accessed individually so we need to come up with a different policy around their expiration? As the common traits among objects in such a garbage pack (iow the way we discover the objects that need to be placed in there) does not involve path information and we lose the ability to compress them well?