Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] pack-objects: generate cruft packs at most one object over threshold

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 13:43:54 -0700

Elijah Newren <[email-masked]> 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.