From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Teemu Likonen Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/git-gc.txt: change --aggressive description Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 13:57:28 +0300 Message-ID: <20080513105728.GA3088@mithlond.arda.local> References: <1210672413-8761-1-git-send-email-pdebie@ai.rug.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Pieter de Bie X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue May 13 12:58:36 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JvsDE-0003dk-VI for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 13 May 2008 12:58:29 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751063AbYEMK5i (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 May 2008 06:57:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751334AbYEMK5i (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 May 2008 06:57:38 -0400 Received: from mta-out.inet.fi ([195.156.147.13]:54691 "EHLO kirsi2.rokki.sonera.fi" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750962AbYEMK5i (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 May 2008 06:57:38 -0400 Received: from mithlond.arda.local (80.220.180.181) by kirsi2.rokki.sonera.fi (8.5.014) id 48236516003684EA; Tue, 13 May 2008 13:57:28 +0300 Received: from dtw by mithlond.arda.local with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1JvsCG-0000pe-43; Tue, 13 May 2008 13:57:28 +0300 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1210672413-8761-1-git-send-email-pdebie@ai.rug.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Pieter de Bie wrote (2008-05-13 11:53 +0200): > I keep seeing people regularly packing their repo with git gc > --aggressive. However, in my experience, this seldom results in > a smaller repository. This can be because the repository was repacked > tightly previously (for example, with a high --window value) or > because incremental "git gc" just makes better packs anyway. Throwing > away that information is often not a good idea. > > The documentation for the --aggressive flag was misleading, in that it > hints that you'll get a smaller pack, which is often not the case. This patch might be a good thing. But from ordinary user's point of view this raises questions: if gc --aggressive really is not that aggressive then the option itself is misleading. Why not change gc --aggressive to be really effective? Using high --window/--depth value etc.