From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: git auto-repack is broken... Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 13:13:59 -0500 Message-ID: <20111202181358.GD24093@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20111202171017.GB23447@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vobvqoozr.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20111202174546.GA24093@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vd3c6onhs.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Linus Torvalds , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , Git Mailing List To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Dec 02 19:14:08 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RWXcd-0003wv-Nt for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2011 19:14:08 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932102Ab1LBSOC (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Dec 2011 13:14:02 -0500 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:39092 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932085Ab1LBSOA (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Dec 2011 13:14:00 -0500 Received: (qmail 8836 invoked by uid 107); 2 Dec 2011 18:20:36 -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/0.84) with ESMTPA; Fri, 02 Dec 2011 13:20:36 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 02 Dec 2011 13:13:59 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vd3c6onhs.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 10:08:15AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > But we shouldn't be packing totally unreferenced objects. > > Everything you said is correct in today's Git and I obviously know it, but > I was taking the "Or have an extra option to..." at the end of the OP's > message in the thread into account, so... Ah, sorry, I missed the subtlety of Linus's "repacking the objects results in problems..." from his later message and thought he just meant repacking in general. Yes, it's a bad idea to repack unreachable objects because then you could never prune anything. I think just shrinking the --expire window that we already use is a much more reasonable bet. It's not about preventing the loss of old work (reflogs are there for that), but about avoiding hurting an actively running, about-to-reference-the-objects git process. And 2 weeks is quite conservative for that. -Peff