From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: dangling commits and blobs: is this normal? Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:05:02 -0400 Message-ID: <20090422200502.GA14304@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <450196A1AAAE4B42A00A8B27A59278E70ACE0502@EXCHANGE.trad.tradestation.com> <20090422152719.GA12881@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Brandon Casey , John Dlugosz , git@vger.kernel.org To: Nicolas Pitre X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Apr 22 22:06:51 2009 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 1LwiiU-0005eH-B0 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:06:46 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753462AbZDVUFK (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:05:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753393AbZDVUFJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:05:09 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:60938 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753097AbZDVUFI (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:05:08 -0400 Received: (qmail 17946 invoked by uid 107); 22 Apr 2009 20:05:15 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:05:15 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:05:02 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 04:00:06PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > And what would be the point of manually running 'git gc' then, given > that 'git gc --auto' is already invoked automatically after most commit > creating commands? > > I mean, if you consider explicit 'git gc' too long, then simply wait > until you can spare the time, if at all. This is not like a non gc'd > repository suddently becomes non functional. The other tradeoff, mentioned by Matthieu, is not about speed, but about rollover of files on disk. I think he would be in favor of a less optimal pack setup if it meant rewriting the largest packfile less frequently. However, it may be reasonable to suggest that he just not manually "gc" then. If he is not generating enough commits to warrant an auto-gc, then he is probably not losing much by having loose objects. And if he is, then auto-gc is already taking care of it. -Peff