On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, Steven Noonan wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, Eric Paris wrote: > > > >> This alone almost certainly tells me how I broke it. > >> > >> For quite some time (a period of months) linux-next was broken and I had > >> to carry a patch to ACPI to make it boot. I dropped that patch at the > >> head of my stgit trees in all of my repositories. So I wouldn't be at > >> all surprised to learn that eventually kernel-2 found that object in > >> kernel-1. Sometime when I dropped that patch from kernel-1 (because it > >> finally got fixed upstream) I can see how it broke. > >> > >> But now that patch shouldn't be needed by any tree since I have long > >> since dropped it from the stgit stack. So if we cleaned up all of the > >> useless objects in this tree I bet this object wouldn't be needed. Not > >> exactly a situation that I'd expect git to be able to dig out of itself > >> thought. > > > > I let the script I provided previously ran for a while. And the commit > > I found to contain the missing object belongs to > > refs/patches/fsnotify/fsnotify-group-priorities.log. So I simply > > deleted that branch entirely and now the repack can proceed. And with a > > 'git gc --aggressive' the 1.2GB repository shrank to a mere 5.2 MB. :-) > > Of course I didn't bring back all the reflogs though. But I would > > have expected a repository reduction of the same magnitude even with > > them. > > > > Are we talking about the same Linux kernel repository as before? As before in this thread. > Because if so, that reduction in size doesn't make any sense to me. Sure it does. > The smallest size I've seen for the Linux kernel repository (in the > past year) is 250MB. Depends if you have an alternate repository from which you may borrow objects from, which was the case here. In that context, 1.2 GB of disk space was completely insane. Nicolas