From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-gui: suggest gc only when counting at least 2 objects Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 16:44:33 -0400 Message-ID: <20090913204433.GA8796@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20090909195158.GA12968@localhost> <20090913160637.GA15256@localhost> <7vr5uasp4a.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20090913184150.GA19209@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org, msysgit@googlegroups.com, "Shawn O. Pearce" To: Clemens Buchacher X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Sep 13 22:44:41 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Mmvw9-0007Gq-Ek for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Sun, 13 Sep 2009 22:44:41 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755124AbZIMUoe (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Sep 2009 16:44:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755119AbZIMUod (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Sep 2009 16:44:33 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:38310 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755080AbZIMUod (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Sep 2009 16:44:33 -0400 Received: (qmail 20228 invoked by uid 107); 13 Sep 2009 20:44:54 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Sun, 13 Sep 2009 16:44:54 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 13 Sep 2009 16:44:33 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090913184150.GA19209@localhost> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 08:41:50PM +0200, Clemens Buchacher wrote: > On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 10:58:45AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Somebody cares to explain why this threashold number has to be different > > per platform in the first place? > > I really don't know. I vaguely remember someone claim that performance on > Windows suffered from many loose objects more than on other platforms. I > can't find any discussion of it though. Maybe 8ff487c? -Peff