Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
