On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:03:06AM +0200, Johan Herland wrote:

quoted text
> Yes, for many repos it does not make much sense to pack branches. But in the 
> case where the repo has many inactive branches (I have repos with 1000 
> branches where at most 5-10 are still active), I'd much rather pack all 
> branches and then later "unpack" the active ones, than write all 
> those "loose" refs as separate files onto the filesystem (e.g. in CygWin 
> *shudder*). In any case, the user normally does not work actively on 
> hundreds of branches, so the overhead of "unpacking" active branches should 
> be fairly negligible in any case.

What I was concerned about was that pack-refs would continue to pack
active branches forever, because by default it repacks branches that are
already packed.

However, it seems that git-gc just passes --all anyway, so it presumably
is not a problem. And at the very least, clone is then consistent with
the auto-gc behavior, which makes sense.

So I withdraw my complaint.

-Peff
--
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