"Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Aug 28, 2025, at 00:26, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> command being retired -- was to reference the provided hints. So, >>> something like this: >>> >>> - send an email to <...> to let us know >>> that you still use this command and were unable >>> to determine a suitable replacement using the hints >>> provided here >> >> Ah, of course, yes, with Kristoffer's update to tell what the >> alternative is, your phrasing is perfect. > > I think so too. Just keep in mind that pack-redundant does not have > that part. For pack-redundant, isn't it because there is no need to find suitable replacement? That is, instead of finding a redundant pack, all of whose objects are contained in some other packs, which practically is impossible to exist in a non-toy repository, and deal with it yourself, you can let the normal "repack" to eject redundant objects from all the non-kept packs. > I think I’ll use that suggestion verbatim. Sounds good.
