From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Mark remote `gc --auto` error messages Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 18:04:55 -0400 Message-ID: <20160602220454.GA17202@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <146489432847.688.11121862368709034386@typhoon> <146489800609.1944.4398103814754920753@typhoon.lan> <20160602214834.GB13356@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Lukas Fleischer , Git Mailing List To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jun 03 00:05:03 2016 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 1b8aje-0003jS-Go for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 03 Jun 2016 00:05:02 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932914AbcFBWE6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jun 2016 18:04:58 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:48071 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S932775AbcFBWE6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jun 2016 18:04:58 -0400 Received: (qmail 6532 invoked by uid 102); 2 Jun 2016 22:04:57 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Thu, 02 Jun 2016 18:04:57 -0400 Received: (qmail 14855 invoked by uid 107); 2 Jun 2016 22:05:05 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Thu, 02 Jun 2016 18:05:05 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 02 Jun 2016 18:04:55 -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 Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 02:59:51PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > So the greater question is not "should this output be marked" but > > "should auto-gc data go over the sideband so that all clients see it > > (and any server-side stderr does not)". And I think the answer is > > probably yes. And that fixes the "remote: " thing as a side effect. > > Thanks for stating this a lot more clearly than I could, and I agree > that sending this to the other side regardless of the protocol is > the right thing. I somehow doubt that server operators would check > Apache logs to decide when to do a proper GC, so I do not consider > it a true loss ;-) I definitely agree. I'd wonder more about "would they want their users to see these details". I dunno. I am only intimately familiar with one git hosting site, and we turn off auto-gc completely. -Peff