On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 03:15:46PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > But the old packs are huge; in my case, a full set of packs was around > > 16 megabytes. Right now, git gc *increased* my disk usage by 4.5 > > megabytes. If we don't delete the old backs, then git gc would > > increase disk usage by 16 megabytes --- which is far, far worse. > > > > Writing a 244k cruft pack is a soooooo much preferable. > > But as you might have noticed, there are a bunch of semantic problems > with that as well. I've proposed something (explicitly labelled cruft packs) which is no worse than before. The one potential problem is that objects in the cruft pack might have their lifespan extended by two weeks (or whatever the expire timeout might be), but Peff has agreed that it's simple enough to ignore that, since the benefits far outweigh the potential that some objects in cruft packs will get to live a bit longer. The race condition you've pointed out exists today, with the git prune racing against the git fetch. - Ted -- 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