From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0B1420193 for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 15:11:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932298AbcHKPLj (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Aug 2016 11:11:39 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:54196 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932227AbcHKPLh (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Aug 2016 11:11:37 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 792B733634; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 11:11:36 -0400 (EDT) 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=04iRDnqFHFqVyiVnl6UxhGoISSU=; b=Ydh3d9 4o7lFQADMs3Pp0nRDHErx5bDCc7d+SgmeESJA7VL1kIZl1Fr26ULD4FkIir5S/dA /4z78P09YPe56sK32Ih499ycjym9sUlViRoLHkfByKzfom+cX7ENOK9wQaBxIrEw U+2omgVYLROux/nCSSI9uQxFKMBs9Yyh/zTvA= 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=vN/zKxbprwqMC9HMYcA/xKoXZTQgiG1f c9chT4QS/iP9+i2sPYgA7+D3Jv5jAL4XGD2WlIcCKbQCxw5HnF3isjqm0DcoZloe 9fDqlpgBsGArIfdJD/0WV7NEKADzbtYhA9ppHwQRcuzvMyObYjgW5ZBr+2ISLLyz CxzYU4BFpaA= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70BDF33633; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 11:11:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EB9A433632; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 11:11:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Michael Haggerty Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] pack-objects mru References: <20160810115206.l57qpehpabthnl6c@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20160810120248.i2hvm2q6ag3rvsk4@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20160811050252.g3iusy7bp3j6tzte@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20160811065751.p64bi3sngbeotwc3@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20160811092030.my5c4x6wplxaf7wz@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20160811095710.p2bffympjlwmv3gc@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 08:11:33 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20160811095710.p2bffympjlwmv3gc@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Thu, 11 Aug 2016 05:57:10 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: E53910E0-5FD5-11E6-B3D1-89D312518317-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > So considering "--depth" as a space-saving measure for --aggressive does > not seem that effective. But it feels weird to quietly drop actions > people might have done with previous aggressive runs. That argument cuts both ways, doesn't it? If the user explicitly asks to use lower "--depth" from the command line when the second repack runs, the intention is clear: the existing pack may use delta chains that are too long and is detrimental to the run-time performance, and the user wants to correct it by repacking with shorter delta chain. Should the act of letting "gc --auto" use lower "--depth", by not configuring to always use deeper chain, be interpreted the same way? I am not sure. The old packing with large --depth is something the user did long time ago, and the decision the user made not to use large depth always is also something the user did long time ago. I do not think it is so cut-and-dried which one of the two conflicting wishes we should honor when running the second repack, especially when it is run unattended like "gc --auto" does.