From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [RFC] Cache negative delta pairs Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 17:39:29 -0400 Message-ID: <20060629213929.GC15604@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20060629180011.GA4392@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20060629185335.GA6704@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20060629195201.GA10786@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Nicolas Pitre , Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Jun 29 23:41:29 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fw4FP-0000ky-Ex for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 29 Jun 2006 23:40:27 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932787AbWF2Vj4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jun 2006 17:39:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932797AbWF2Vjz (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jun 2006 17:39:55 -0400 Received: from 66-23-211-5.clients.speedfactory.net ([66.23.211.5]:11464 "HELO peff.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S932754AbWF2Vjb (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jun 2006 17:39:31 -0400 Received: (qmail 11174 invoked from network); 29 Jun 2006 17:39:09 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by 66-23-211-5.clients.speedfactory.net with SMTP; 29 Jun 2006 17:39:09 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 29 Jun 2006 17:39:29 -0400 To: Linus Torvalds Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 02:30:11PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > However, that is obviously also the dis-advantage, since it means that > repacking cannot improve packing. So adding a flag to say "please try to > incrementally improve the pack" might well be worth it, even if this new > behaviour would be the _default_. We could tie the on/off to --no-reuse-delta, since you would mostly want them at the same time. This disallows repacking over and over to try to incrementally improve size. Do people actually do that? > Hmm? Jeff, does this work for your load? Yes, just as well as my original patch. -Peff