On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 1:03 AM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
quoted text
> On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 11:01:55PM -0500, drafnel@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> -             keep_unreachable=--keep-unreachable ;;
>> +             keep_unreachable=t ;;
>
> Can we call this something else (like unpack_unreachable) since it now
> has nothing to do with the --keep-unreachable flag?

Actually I initially changed it to unpack_unreachable, and then
changed it back. The reason I did this is because I think
keep_unreachable still describes what is being accomplished, that
unreachables are being kept. When -A is supplied along with -d,
unreachables are kept by being unpacked. When -d is not supplied,
unreachables are kept in their original pack file. If Geert's proposal
or something else is implemented, keep_unreachable may still be
appropriate. hmm?

quoted text
> Also, should --keep-unreachable be deprecated / removed?
>
>> +                     *)
>> +                             rm -f "$e.idx" "$e.keep"
>> +                             if test -n "$keep_unreachable" &&
>> +                                test -f "$e.pack"
>> +                             then
>> +                                     git unpack-objects < "$e.pack" || {
>> +                                             echo >&2 "Failed unpacking unreachable objects from redundant pack file $e.pack"
>> +                                             exit 1
>> +                                     }
>> +                             fi
>
> I still like Geert's suggestion of unpacking them to a _different_
> place. That helps to avoid spurious "gc --auto" invocations caused by
> too many prunable objects. Though it certainly doesn't solve it, and
> maybe that just needs to be fixed separately.

That was my thinking.

quoted text
>
> Possibly the "gc --auto" test should be:
>
>  - count objects; if too few, exit
>  - count unreachable loose objects; if too few, exit
>  - run gc
>
> That means having a lot of unreachable objects will still incur some
> extra processing, but not as much as a full repack. And it won't bug the
> user with a "you need to repack" message.

I've got a thought. How about limiting how often auto repack repacks
by looking at the timestamp of the most recent pack? Wouldn't the
packs already be prepared in most cases i.e. prepare_packed_git()

-brandon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html