From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wincent Colaiuta Subject: Re: People unaware of the importance of "git gc"? Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 10:51:09 +0200 Message-ID: <65C61F04-EF05-4CB4-A4E2-BFF6601F46B9@wincent.com> References: <7vsl5tk1r8.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Linus Torvalds , Git Mailing List To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Sep 05 10:51:58 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1ISqc9-00064F-OM for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 05 Sep 2007 10:51:58 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756092AbXIEIvx convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Sep 2007 04:51:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756086AbXIEIvw (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Sep 2007 04:51:52 -0400 Received: from wincent.com ([72.3.236.74]:43100 "EHLO s69819.wincent.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756055AbXIEIvw convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Sep 2007 04:51:52 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.99] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by s69819.wincent.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l858pBRR003005; Wed, 5 Sep 2007 03:51:13 -0500 In-Reply-To: <7vsl5tk1r8.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: El 5/9/2007, a las 9:30, Junio C Hamano escribi=F3: > Perhaps _exiting_ "git-commit" and "git-fetch" before doing > anything, when the repository has more than 5000 loose objects > with a LOUD bang that instructs an immediate repack would be > good? > > I really do not like the idea of automatically running a repack > after first interrupting the original command and then resuming. > For one thing it would make a horribly difficult situation to > debug if anything goes wrong. You cannot reproduce such a > situation easily. I would strongly oppose any *automatic* repacking and strongly =20 support any *advisory* recommandation to repack when the loose object =20 count exceeds a certain threshold. I don't think *exiting* a command =20 in such cases is a good idea; worse than automatic repacking this =20 would be *forced* manual repacking, which isn't very user-friendly. Cheers, Wincent