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 14:08:42 +0300 Message-ID: <20080513110842.GB3088@mithlond.arda.local> References: <1210672413-8761-1-git-send-email-pdebie@ai.rug.nl> <20080513105728.GA3088@mithlond.arda.local> 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 13:09:43 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 1JvsO6-0007c3-7r for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 13 May 2008 13:09:42 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759878AbYEMLIt (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 May 2008 07:08:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759917AbYEMLIs (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 May 2008 07:08:48 -0400 Received: from mta-out.inet.fi ([195.156.147.13]:47108 "EHLO kirsi1.rokki.sonera.fi" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759878AbYEMLIr (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 May 2008 07:08:47 -0400 Received: from mithlond.arda.local (80.220.180.181) by kirsi1.rokki.sonera.fi (8.5.014) id 48232FF00038C394; Tue, 13 May 2008 14:08:44 +0300 Received: from dtw by mithlond.arda.local with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1JvsN8-00012c-BB; Tue, 13 May 2008 14:08:42 +0300 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080513105728.GA3088@mithlond.arda.local> 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: Teemu Likonen wrote (2008-05-13 13:57 +0300): > 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. I mean, what I'm seeing many places is suggestions to run git repack -a -d -f --window=100 --depth=100 to get the repo small. _If_ there's such a common need for this then wouldn't it be good thing if there was easy and self-descriptive command for it, such as gc --aggressive?