From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: NightStrike Subject: Re: Git and GCC Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 13:24:34 -0500 Message-ID: References: <4aca3dc20712051947t5fbbb383ua1727c652eb25d7e@mail.gmail.com> <20071205.202047.58135920.davem@davemloft.net> <4aca3dc20712052032n521c344cla07a5df1f2c26cb8@mail.gmail.com> <20071205.204848.227521641.davem@davemloft.net> <4aca3dc20712052111o730f6fb6h7a329ee811a70f28@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Daniel Berlin" , "David Miller" , ismail@pardus.org.tr, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, git@vger.kernel.org To: "Linus Torvalds" X-From: gcc-return-142755-gcc=m.gmane.org@gcc.gnu.org Thu Dec 06 19:25:16 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 1J0LPG-0002Ud-DB for gcc@gmane.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:25:06 +0100 Received: (qmail 23359 invoked by alias); 6 Dec 2007 18:24:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 23349 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Dec 2007 18:24:47 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com (HELO nz-out-0506.google.com) (64.233.162.239) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:24:38 +0000 Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i11so150406nzh for ; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:24:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.83.4 with SMTP id g4mr1818981wfb.1196965475061; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:24:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.126.8 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 10:24:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 12/6/07, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > > > Actually, it turns out that git-gc --aggressive does this dumb thing > > to pack files sometimes regardless of whether you converted from an > > SVN repo or not. > I'll send a patch to Junio to just remove the "git gc --aggressive" > documentation. It can be useful, but it generally is useful only when you > really understand at a very deep level what it's doing, and that > documentation doesn't help you do that. No disrespect is meant by this reply. I am just curious (and I am probably misunderstanding something).. Why remove all of the documentation entirely? Wouldn't it be better to just document it more thoroughly? I thought you did a fine job in this post in explaining its purpose, when to use it, when not to, etc. Removing the documention seems counter-intuitive when you've already gone to the trouble of creating good documentation here in this post.