From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] reachable: only mark local objects as recent Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 09:28:25 -0400 Message-ID: <20150417132824.GA13192@peff.net> References: <20150327113240.GA7781@peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Apr 17 15:28:34 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Yj6Jt-0005B5-E9 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 15:28:33 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753790AbbDQN23 (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Apr 2015 09:28:29 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:46682 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752740AbbDQN21 (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Apr 2015 09:28:27 -0400 Received: (qmail 32632 invoked by uid 102); 17 Apr 2015 13:28:27 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 08:28:27 -0500 Received: (qmail 1751 invoked by uid 107); 17 Apr 2015 13:28:51 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 09:28:51 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 17 Apr 2015 09:28:25 -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 Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:00:05PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > It is possible that we may drop an object that is depended > > upon by another object in the alternate. For example, > > imagine two repositories, A and B, with A pointing to B as > > an alternate. Now imagine a commit that is in B which > > references a tree that is only in A. Traversing from recent > > objects in B might prevent A from dropping that tree. But > > this case isn't worth covering. Repo B should take > > responsibility for its own objects. It would never have had > > the commit in the first place if it did not also have the > > tree, and assuming it is using the same "keep recent chunks > > of history" scheme, then it would itself keep the tree, as > > well. > > In other words, if you have a loop in dependency chain among > alternate repositories, your set-up is broken by definition. > > Which makes sense to me. > > Thanks. I don't see this patch in "pu" or "What's Cooking" at all. Did it get dropped? It does fix a performance regression, but the problem is in v2.2, so I don't think it's urgent for v2.4-rc. -Peff