From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David Tweed" Subject: Re: Why repository grows after "git gc"? / Purpose of *.keep files? Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 18:17:05 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20080512122900.GA13050@mithlond.arda.local> <20080512155243.GA3592@mithlond.arda.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: "Teemu Likonen" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon May 12 19:18:16 2008 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 1Jvbey-0008ND-3d for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 12 May 2008 19:18:00 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755641AbYELRRK (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 May 2008 13:17:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754358AbYELRRJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 May 2008 13:17:09 -0400 Received: from yw-out-2324.google.com ([74.125.46.28]:60073 "EHLO yw-out-2324.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753518AbYELRRG (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 May 2008 13:17:06 -0400 Received: by yw-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 9so1351165ywe.1 for ; Mon, 12 May 2008 10:17:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=9u79QYWoGKCCKaiW5JPS4xE8Jz+ulqUwVEYfbuUsd8Q=; b=xWj8ZCDFEVu1uBb/XIMshxFWFuWc/nUJ/CS7K3KuI+Bn9Qta6gJfJMBlogj3L/5UVOjoOfW+yvbhUWpopthv1rbislAHmWbSxVKY1GUxLUIymvPCiofCROAhHq3pFziMpbpEqcc1ldcYqhXx/P4z7K4tIwzeX1A/tqGyz4DNLtM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=H+qcOoKNSAli9980e1A+fztrsXGB/AGiNR5brmELdrnpy9Yah3vhwgC1HOw1MlgohUahGGibWa2juI65Oodly7xUvAiSe3DxJCrvo9tjfjxGtiPEyEOJ7UUM19e860CErS8gfQDST/vRJ2B8roP6NkNKKgNp6WX9bq0HrAfka1Q= Received: by 10.150.69.3 with SMTP id r3mr8513907yba.108.1210612625720; Mon, 12 May 2008 10:17:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.145.6 with HTTP; Mon, 12 May 2008 10:17:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20080512155243.GA3592@mithlond.arda.local> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Teemu Likonen wrote: > Teemu Likonen wrote (2008-05-12 15:29 +0300): > Probably a crazy idea: What if "gc --aggressive" first removed *.keep > files and after packing and garbage-collecting and whatever it does it > would add a .keep file for the newly created pack? My understanding is that the repacking with -a redoes the computation to repack ALL the objects in every pack and loose objects, whereas what would be preferred is to try to delta new objects (loose and packed) against the existing .keep pack (extending it with the new objects) but not trying to re-deltify objects in the .keep pack. This is because .keep files are primarily for those who are cloning onto a machine that isn't powerful (maybe even a laptop/palmtop) but who are cloning from a powerful server, so that you wouldn't necessarily want to apply your strategy unconditionally. -- cheers, dave tweed__________________________ david.tweed@gmail.com Rm 124, School of Systems Engineering, University of Reading. "while having code so boring anyone can maintain it, use Python." -- attempted insult seen on slashdot