From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy" Subject: Re: Something is broken in repack Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:52:05 +0700 Message-ID: References: <47616044.7070504@viscovery.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Paolo Bonzini" , git@vger.kernel.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org To: "Jakub Narebski" , "Harvey Harrison" X-From: gcc-return-142983-gcc=m.gmane.org@gcc.gnu.org Fri Dec 14 11:52:46 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcc@gmane.org Received: from sourceware.org ([209.132.176.174]) by lo.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.50) id 1J389g-0006rE-MV for gcc@gmane.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:52:33 +0100 Received: (qmail 10672 invoked by alias); 14 Dec 2007 10:52:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 10660 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Dec 2007 10:52:12 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (HELO nf-out-0910.google.com) (64.233.182.189) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:52:08 +0000 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id h3so1467914nfh.6 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 02:52:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.86.4.2 with SMTP id 2mr2856787fgd.77.1197629525451; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 02:52:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.86.83.6 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 02:52:05 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc@gcc.gnu.org Archived-At: On Dec 14, 2007 4:01 PM, Harvey Harrison wrote: > While it doesn't mark the packs as .keep, git will reuse all of the old > deltas you got in the original clone, so you're not losing anything. There is another reason I want it. I have an ~800MB pack and I don't want git to rewrite the pack every time I repack my changes. So it's kind of disk-wise (don't require 800MB on disk to prepare new pack, and don't write too much). On Dec 14, 2007 5:40 PM, Jakub Narebski wrote: > But if you clone via network, pack might be network optimized if you > use "smart" transport, not disk optimized, at least with current git > which regenerates pack also on clone AFAIK. Um.. that's ok it just regenerate once. -- Duy