On 08/07/2013 05:48 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> seems overkill to me: why don't you just let cmd_repack call >> update_server_info(0)? > > My feeling exactly. I would rather see a patch that does not touch > pack-objects at all, and use run_command() interface to spawn it. > Once we do have to pack, the necessary processing cycle will dwarf > the fork/exec latency anyway, no? > Thanks for clarification. That was my initial idea as well, to not touch the pack-objects logic. However Duy send that patch (basically as is, I just made it apply again), and I guessed that I'd get to results faster with an already existing approach. I will reconsider and try to remove the additional logic from pack-objects again (so it will not get touched) and move it to the repack itself. It is just a way to understand, 'what needs to be done'. Stefan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature