On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Shawn Pearce wrote: > > Actually there is a point to storing thin packs. When I pull from > a remote repo (or push to a remote repo) a huge number of objects > and the target disk that is about to receive that huge number of > loose objects is slooooooooow I would rather just store the thin > pack then store the loose objects. > > Ideally that thin pack would be repacked (along with the other > existing packs) as quickly as possible into a self-contained pack. > But that of course is unlikely to happen in practice; especially > on a push. I'm really nervous about keeping thin packs around. But a possibly good (and fairly simple) alternative would be to just create a non-thin pack on the receiving side. Right now we unpack into a lot of loose objects, but it should be possible to instead "unpack" into a non-thin pack. In other words, we could easily still use the thin pack for communication, we'd just "fill it out" on the receiving side. Linus - 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