From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Cc: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gc: do not warn about too many loose objects
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 15:41:36 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180716194136.GA25189@sigill.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180716190949.GB11513@aiede.svl.corp.google.com>
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 12:09:49PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> >>> So while I completely agree that it's not a great thing to encourage
> >>> users to blindly run "git prune", I think it _is_ actionable.
> >>
> >> To flesh this out a little more: what user action do you suggest? Could
> >> we carry out that action automatically?
> >
> > Er, the action is to run "git prune", like the warning says. :)
>
> I don't think we want to recommend that, especially when "git gc --auto"
> does the right thing automatically.
But that's the point. This warning is written literally after running
"git gc --auto" _didn't_ do the right thing. Yes, it would be nicer if
it could do the right thing. But it doesn't yet know how to.
See the thread I linked earlier on putting unreachable objects into a
pack, which I think is the real solution.
> > The warning that is deleted by this patch is: you _just_ ran gc, and hey
> > we even did it automatically for you, but we're still in a funky state
> > afterwards. You might need to clean up this state.
>
> This sounds awful. It sounds to me like you're saying "git gc --auto"
> is saying "I just did the wrong thing, and here is how you can clean
> up after me". That's not how I want a program to behave.
Sure, it would be nice if it did the right thing. Nobody has written
that yet. Until they do, we have to deal with the fallout.
> > If you do that without anything further, then it will break the
> > protection against repeatedly running auto-gc, as I described in the
> > previous email.
>
> Do you mean ratelimiting for the message, or do you actually mean
> repeatedly running auto-gc itself?
>
> If we suppress warnings, there would still be a gc.log while "git gc
> --auto" is running, just as though there had been no warnings at all.
> I believe this is close to the intended behavior; it's the same as
> what you'd get without daemon mode, except that you lose the warning.
I mean that if you do not write a persistent log, then "gc --auto" will
do an unproductive gc every time it is invoked. I.e., it will see "oh,
there are too many loose objects", and then waste a bunch of CPU every
time you commit.
> > Any of those would work similarly to the "just detect warnings" I
> > suggested earlier, with respect to keeping the "1 day" expiration
> > intact, so I'd be OK with them. In theory they'd be more robust than
> > scraping the "warning:" prefix. But in practice, I think you have to
> > resort to scraping anyway, if you are interested in treating warnings
> > from sub-processes the same way.
>
> Can you say more about this for me? I am not understanding what
> you're saying necessitates scraping the output. I would strongly
> prefer to avoid scraping the output.
A daemonized git-gc runs a bunch of sub-commands (e.g., "git prune")
with their stderr redirected into the logfile. If you want to have
warnings go somewhere else, then either:
- you need some way to tell those sub-commands to send the warnings
elsewhere (i.e., _not_ stderr)
or
- you have to post-process the output they send to separate warnings
from other errors. Right now that means scraping. If you are
proposing a system of machine-readable output, it would need to work
not just for git-gc, but for every sub-command it runs.
-Peff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-16 19:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-07-16 17:27 [PATCH] gc: do not warn about too many loose objects Jonathan Tan
2018-07-16 17:51 ` Jeff King
2018-07-16 18:22 ` Jonathan Nieder
2018-07-16 18:52 ` Jeff King
2018-07-16 19:09 ` Jonathan Nieder
2018-07-16 19:41 ` Jeff King [this message]
2018-07-16 19:54 ` Jonathan Nieder
2018-07-16 20:29 ` Jeff King
2018-07-16 20:37 ` Jonathan Nieder
2018-07-16 21:09 ` Jeff King
2018-07-16 21:40 ` Jonathan Nieder
2018-07-16 21:45 ` Jeff King
2018-07-16 22:03 ` Jonathan Nieder
2018-07-16 22:43 ` Jeff King
2018-07-16 22:56 ` Jonathan Nieder
2018-07-16 23:26 ` Jeff King
2018-07-17 1:53 ` Jonathan Nieder
2018-07-17 8:59 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2018-07-17 14:03 ` Jonathan Nieder
2018-07-17 15:24 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2018-07-17 20:27 ` Jeff King
2018-07-18 13:11 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2018-07-18 17:29 ` Jeff King
2018-07-17 15:59 ` Duy Nguyen
2018-07-17 18:09 ` Junio C Hamano
2018-07-16 19:15 ` Elijah Newren
2018-07-16 19:19 ` Jonathan Nieder
2018-07-16 20:21 ` Elijah Newren
2018-07-16 20:35 ` Jeff King
2018-07-16 20:56 ` Jonathan Nieder
2018-07-16 21:12 ` Jeff King
2018-07-16 19:52 ` Jeff King
2018-07-16 20:16 ` Elijah Newren
2018-07-16 20:38 ` Jeff King
2018-07-16 21:09 ` Elijah Newren
2018-07-16 21:21 ` Jeff King
2018-07-16 22:07 ` Elijah Newren
2018-07-16 22:55 ` Jeff King
2018-07-16 23:06 ` Elijah Newren
2018-07-16 21:31 ` Jonathan Nieder
2018-07-17 6:51 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] gc --auto: do not return error for prior errors in daemonized mode Jonathan Nieder
2018-07-17 6:53 ` [PATCH 1/3] gc: improve handling of errors reading gc.log Jonathan Nieder
2018-07-17 18:19 ` Junio C Hamano
2018-07-17 19:58 ` Jeff King
2018-07-17 6:54 ` [PATCH 2/3] gc: exit with status 128 on failure Jonathan Nieder
2018-07-17 18:22 ` Junio C Hamano
2018-07-17 19:59 ` Jeff King
2018-09-17 18:33 ` Jeff King
2018-09-17 18:40 ` Jonathan Nieder
2018-09-18 17:30 ` Jeff King
2018-07-17 6:57 ` [PATCH 3/3] gc: do not return error for prior errors in daemonized mode Jonathan Nieder
2018-07-17 20:13 ` Jeff King
2018-07-18 16:21 ` Junio C Hamano
2018-07-18 17:22 ` Jeff King
2018-07-18 18:19 ` Junio C Hamano
2018-07-18 19:06 ` Jeff King
2018-07-18 19:55 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180716194136.GA25189@sigill.intra.peff.net \
--to=peff@peff.net \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=jonathantanmy@google.com \
--cc=jrnieder@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).