From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Cc: Johannes Sixt <johannes.sixt@telecom.at>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Teach repack to optionally retain otherwise lost objects
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:15:05 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7vaboxy3va.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0711290340470.27959@racer.site> (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Thu, 29 Nov 2007 03:41:42 +0000 (GMT)")
Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> Besides, a completely different idea just struck me: before
> repacking, .git/objects/pack/* could be _hard linked_ to the
> forkee's object stores. Then nothing in git-repack's code
> needs to be changed.
>
> Oh, well. I just wasted 1.5 hours.
Your 1.5 hours was spent wisely to come up with that idea ;-).
To make sure I understand your idea correctly, the procedure to repack a
repository in a fork-friendly way is:
(1) find the project directly forked from you;
(2) hardlink all packs under your object store to their object store;
(3) repack -a -l and prune.
I think that would work as long as you do the above as a unit and handle
one repository at a time. Otherwise I think you risk losing necessary
objects when hierarchical forks are involved. E.g. if you have a
project X that has a fork Y which in turn has fork Z.
* Step 1 is run for X, Y and Z.
* Step 2 is run for Y and Z.
* Step 3 is run for Z.
At this point, Z is still borrowing objects from Y and X through Y, and
it will not keep objects it is borrowing from X through Y. Then if the
procedure is intermixed like this, a bad thing happens.
* Step 2 is run for X.
* Step 3 is run for Y.
* Step 3 is run for X.
Step 3 for Y would lose objects Y was borrowing from X that were not
used by Y itself. At this point, Z is still usable as the objects it is
borrowing from X though Y have not been pruned from X. But Step 3 for X
will lose them, rendering Z unusable.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-11-29 6:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-11-18 11:25 [RFC] Alternates and broken repos: A pack and prune scheme to avoid them Johannes Sixt
2007-11-18 18:39 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-11-18 20:01 ` Johannes Sixt
2007-11-18 20:10 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-11-29 3:41 ` [PATCH/RFC] Teach repack to optionally retain otherwise lost objects Johannes Schindelin
2007-11-29 6:15 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2007-11-29 11:57 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-11-29 14:21 ` [PATCH] Add "--expire <time>" option to 'git prune' Johannes Schindelin
2007-11-29 14:35 ` Johannes Sixt
2007-11-29 15:22 ` [PATCH v2] " Johannes Schindelin
2007-11-29 15:12 ` [PATCH] " Jeff King
2007-11-29 16:13 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-11-29 20:06 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-11-29 20:59 ` Johannes Schindelin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=7vaboxy3va.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=johannes.sixt@telecom.at \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).