From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Example Cogito Addon - cogito-bundle Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:00:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <20061018053647.GA3507@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20061018185225.GU20017@pasky.or.cz> <20061018185907.GV20017@pasky.or.cz> <7vy7rd1m4q.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20061018191834.GA18829@spearce.org> <20061018204626.GA19194@spearce.org> <20061018214143.GF19194@spearce.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Nicolas Pitre , Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Oct 19 00:01:12 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GaJTL-0005xn-Cj for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 00:01:11 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1423061AbWJRWBH (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:01:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1423063AbWJRWBH (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:01:07 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:30926 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1423061AbWJRWBG (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:01:06 -0400 Received: from shell0.pdx.osdl.net (fw.osdl.org [65.172.181.6]) by smtp.osdl.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k9IM0vaX019267 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:00:58 -0700 Received: from localhost (shell0.pdx.osdl.net [10.9.0.31]) by shell0.pdx.osdl.net (8.13.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k9IM0uId020046; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:00:57 -0700 To: Shawn Pearce In-Reply-To: <20061018214143.GF19194@spearce.org> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.97 required=5 tests=AWL,OSDL_HEADER_SUBJECT_BRACKETED X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63-osdl_revision__1.95__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.155 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.36 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Shawn Pearce wrote: > > Actually there is a point to storing thin packs. When I pull from > a remote repo (or push to a remote repo) a huge number of objects > and the target disk that is about to receive that huge number of > loose objects is slooooooooow I would rather just store the thin > pack then store the loose objects. > > Ideally that thin pack would be repacked (along with the other > existing packs) as quickly as possible into a self-contained pack. > But that of course is unlikely to happen in practice; especially > on a push. I'm really nervous about keeping thin packs around. But a possibly good (and fairly simple) alternative would be to just create a non-thin pack on the receiving side. Right now we unpack into a lot of loose objects, but it should be possible to instead "unpack" into a non-thin pack. In other words, we could easily still use the thin pack for communication, we'd just "fill it out" on the receiving side. Linus