On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 02:20:12PM -0400, Ted Ts'o wrote: > On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 01:54:19PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > > > You're doing it wrong (but you can hardly be blamed, because there isn't > > good tool support for doing it right). You should never prune or repack > > in the base repo without taking into account all of the refs of its > > children. > > Well, I don't do a simple gc. See the complicated set of steps I use > to make sure I don't lose loose commits at the end of my last e-mail > message on this thread. It gets worse when I have multiple devel > repos, but I simplified things for the purposes of discussion. Ah, right. I was thinking that your first step, which is "git repack -Adfl", would throw out old objects rather than unpack them in recent versions of git. But due to the way I implemented it (namely that you must pass --unpack-unreachable yourself, so this feature only kicks in automatically for "git gc"), that is not the case. I don't recall if that was an accident, or if I was very clever in maintaining backwards compatibility for your case. Let's just assume the latter. :) > > We have a similar setup at github (every time you "fork" a repo, it is > > creating a new repo that links back to a project-wide "network" repo for > > its object store). We maintain a refs/remotes/XXX directory for each > > child repo, which stores the complete refs/ hierarchy of that child. > > So you basically are copying the refs around and making sure the > parent repo has an uptodate pointer of all of the child repos, such > that when you do the repack, *all* of the commits end up in the parent > commit, correct? Yes. The child repositories generally have no objects in them at all (they occasionally do for a period between runs of the migration script). > The system that I'm using means that objects which are local to a > child repo stays in the child repo, and if an object is about to be > dropped from the parent repo as a result of a gc, the child repo has > an opportunity claim a copy of that object for itself in its object > database. That implies the concept of "local to a child repo", which implies that you have some set of "common" refs. I suspect in your case your base repo represents the master branch, or something similar. We actually treat our network repo as a pure parent; every repo, including the original one that everybody forks from, is a child. That makes it easier to treat the original repo as just another repo (e.g., the original owner is free to delete it, and the forks won't care). > You can do things either way. I like knowing that objects only used > by a child repo are in the child repo's .git directory, but that's > arguably more of a question of taste than anything else. Yeah, I don't think there is any real benefit to it. -Peff -- 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