From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC0D81F8C2 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 23:16:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229845AbhBIXKq (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Feb 2021 18:10:46 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:58815 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234139AbhBIWOz (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Feb 2021 17:14:55 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C87EEB11A5; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 16:50:17 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=duk7SMxFbEINbaPzibqsMjA+7IM=; b=vbi4VU vxMkixL1trMPbC1045fNhpdAYgHh2m7oC/VtNWJnJYRtllIAldap+EVOhN3tOCZ+ KbsauFQL+g5U6iPlWTs28UxEJj8wwfVNelx9nMCmYtiG2auxJuDUBzp/WBeBlQsi k+unsKxAC7Kbfeqf7jvWluP0zD9kifJ5j3ZAc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=P0QTZjZyVZPa/SeELZ7FzTT15JWXsoDy KKRyUBbUkojZYv3FM2Y3kMU8MO0kY6mC6xMldiHlq4YMEpTbwj9jS6LaLfaa2DSe NbFlVmKzrEQcC0K6UCVnTThpG8Pqwrm0eG5kuz+65/neIw27WzyYf7aTtbbQWK7K XiTqqgHe+dM= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0E7AB11A4; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 16:50:17 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4972AB11A3; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 16:50:17 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: "Christian Walther via GitGitGadget" Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Christian Walther Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: mention bigFileThreshold for packing References: Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2021 13:50:16 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Christian Walther via GitGitGadget's message of "Tue, 09 Feb 2021 19:07:03 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: CC27904E-6B20-11EB-8AF9-74DE23BA3BAF-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org "Christian Walther via GitGitGadget" writes: > From: Christian Walther > > Knowing about the core.bigFileThreshold configuration variable is > helpful when examining pack file size differences between repositories. > Add a reference to it to the manpages a user is likely to read in this > situation. Thanks. I doubt that the description of --window/--depth command line options, for both repack and pack-objects, is the best place to add this "Note". Even if we were to add it as an appendix to these places, please do not break the flow of explanation by inserting it before the description of the default values of these options. > I recently spent a lot of time trying to figure out why git repack would > create huge packs on some clones of my repository and small ones on > others, until I found out about the existence of the > core.bigFileThreshold configuration variable, which happened to be set > on some and not on others. It would have saved me a lot of time if that > variable had been mentioned in the relevant manpages that I was reading, > git-repack and git-pack-objects. So this patch adds that. Not related to the contents of the patch, but I am somewhat curious to know what configuration resulted in the "huge" ones and "small" ones. Documentation/config/core.txt::core.bigFileThreashold may be helped by addition of a success story, and the configuration for the "small" ones may be a good place to start. Thanks