From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: thin packs ending up fat Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:15:45 -0500 Message-ID: <20120113151545.GA9373@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20120112221523.GA3663@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20120112223234.GA4949@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vwr8wz8u9.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20120113015117.GA8245@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vmx9sysqe.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Nicolas Pitre To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jan 13 16:16:00 2012 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 1RlirH-00060v-QP for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:16:00 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758248Ab2AMPPy (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:15:54 -0500 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:36687 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751778Ab2AMPPy (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:15:54 -0500 Received: (qmail 9953 invoked by uid 107); 13 Jan 2012 15:22:44 -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, 13 Jan 2012 10:22:44 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:15:45 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vmx9sysqe.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 Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 11:19:37PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I wanted to make sure I understood the root cause of the issue and the > approach the patch takes to address it, instead of committing something > that smelled correct. And the only way I know to do so is to write it > down. I use something of the same technique myself... > Especiallly, before coming up with the description, I was wondering if > this kind of symptom appears in non-thin cases, but after writing down the > justification for this patch, it became clear that we wouldn't have to > worry too much about that case. In a non-thin pack, we need to record one > object at least in a delta family in inflated base form, so we may as well > send that one near the tip that is already in that form for that, letting > the existing "avoid futile delta" heuristics to kick in. Other objects in > the same delta family will delta against it. Exactly. You asked earlier why my one-liner patch was not in the first message. It's because it was only through writing the first message that I came to the same realization. :) -Peff