On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:12 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> I thought about that, but we may need to do extra stat() for loose
>> garbage as well. As it is now, garbage is complained loudly, which
>> gives me enough motivation to clean up, even without looking at how
>> much disk space it uses.
>
> I wouldn't call a single line "garbage: 4" exactly *loud*. I also
> think that this is not about *motivating* you, but about giving
> more information to the users to help them assess the health of
> their repository themselves.
That's not the only line it prints:
error: garbage found:
.git/objects/pack/pack-8074dfd2b01f494a30f02d0374baa57632d26fea.commits
error: garbage found:
.git/objects/pack/pack-834c9dccca7634c2b225db1b5050a980cb2c2de0.commits
error: garbage found: .git/objects/pack/tmp_pack_G235da
error: garbage found:
.git/objects/pack/pack-8bdf298e9252573289cd4f1e83e80c9f261882a2.commits
count: 604
size: 5576
in-pack: 172307
packs: 4
size-pack: 50421
prune-packable: 4
garbage: 4
> By the way, I wonder if we also want to notice .git/objects/garbage
> or .git/objects/ga/rbage if we are to do this?
I prefer not (for code simplicity) because we may need to catch
.git/objects/pack/info/garbage too if we do that.
>> + if (!has_extension(de->d_name, ".pack")) {
>> + report_pack_garbage(path, 0, NULL);
>> + continue;
>> + }
>
> Didn't I already say the logic should be inverted to whitelist the
> known ones? Saying "Anything that is not '.pack' is bad" here is a
> direct opposite, I think.
I must have missed it. Will do.
>
> Add "A '.keep' file is OK" to this codeflow and see how it goes.
OK
--
Duy
--
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