Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 08:15:56PM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote: > >> Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > Why so? Having fewer packs is always a good thing. Having only one >> > pack is of course the optimal situation. >> >> Good and optimal wrt Git, but not wrt an incremental backup system for >> example. I have a "git gc" running daily in a cron job in each of my >> repositories, but to be nice with my sysadmin, I don't want to rewrite >> tens of megabytes of data each night just because I commited a 2 lines >> patch somewhere. > > You can mark your "big" pack with a .keep, then do your nightly gc as > usual. You'll have a smaller pack being rewritten each night. When it > gets big enough, drop the .keep, gc, and then .keep the new pack. (thanks, I wasn't aware of this .keep thing before reading this thread) > Yes, it's a bit more work for you, but having "git gc" optimize by > default for git's performance seems to be the only sensible course. Sure. Sorry if my message read as "git gc does the wrong thing", I was just mentionning that it's not optimal with respect to everything. -- Matthieu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html