From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] Teach "git clone" to pack refs Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 05:57:50 -0400 Message-ID: <20080616095750.GA24116@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <200806151602.03445.johan@herland.net> <200806151606.16380.johan@herland.net> <20080615175613.GC6127@sigill.intra.peff.net> <200806160003.06300.johan@herland.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano , Daniel Barkalow To: Johan Herland X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jun 16 11:58:50 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 1K8BU9-0008HN-5g for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:58:49 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758301AbYFPJ5z (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 05:57:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757146AbYFPJ5y (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 05:57:54 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:4559 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756865AbYFPJ5y (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 05:57:54 -0400 Received: (qmail 31006 invoked by uid 111); 16 Jun 2008 09:57:51 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 05:57:51 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 05:57:50 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200806160003.06300.johan@herland.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:03:06AM +0200, Johan Herland wrote: > 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