From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Pitre Subject: Re: dangling commits and blobs: is this normal? Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:11:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <450196A1AAAE4B42A00A8B27A59278E70ACE0502@EXCHANGE.trad.tradestation.com> <20090422152719.GA12881@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20090422200502.GA14304@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: Brandon Casey , John Dlugosz , git@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Apr 22 22:14:22 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LwipV-0008VQ-AU for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:14:01 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753087AbZDVULw (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:11:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753462AbZDVULw (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:11:52 -0400 Received: from relais.videotron.ca ([24.201.245.36]:23902 "EHLO relais.videotron.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752516AbZDVULv (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:11:51 -0400 Received: from xanadu.home ([66.131.194.97]) by VL-MH-MR001.ip.videotron.ca (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-4.01 (built Aug 3 2007; 32bit)) with ESMTP id <0KII004L4QRKK990@VL-MH-MR001.ip.videotron.ca> for git@vger.kernel.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:11:45 -0400 (EDT) X-X-Sender: nico@xanadu.home In-reply-to: <20090422200502.GA14304@coredump.intra.peff.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, 22 Apr 2009, Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 04:00:06PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > And what would be the point of manually running 'git gc' then, given > > that 'git gc --auto' is already invoked automatically after most commit > > creating commands? > > > > I mean, if you consider explicit 'git gc' too long, then simply wait > > until you can spare the time, if at all. This is not like a non gc'd > > repository suddently becomes non functional. > > The other tradeoff, mentioned by Matthieu, is not about speed, but about > rollover of files on disk. I think he would be in favor of a less > optimal pack setup if it meant rewriting the largest packfile less > frequently. > > However, it may be reasonable to suggest that he just not manually "gc" > then. If he is not generating enough commits to warrant an auto-gc, then > he is probably not losing much by having loose objects. And if he is, > then auto-gc is already taking care of it. My point exactly. And those people savvy enough to automate 'git gc' nightly should be able to cope with .keep files as well. Nicolas