On Wed, 4 Jul 2007, Sam Vilain wrote: > Johannes Schindelin wrote: > >>>> 1. Do you agree that some users would want their git repositories to be > >>>> "maintenance free"? > >>> I'm not so sure. > >> Well, no offence, but I think you should withhold from voicing a > >> fundamental concern as this, because you're not one of its target users. > > Let's put it this way. A lot of car drivers would probably agree that it > > is a Good Thing (tm) if their car automatically went to get gas, before it > > ran out of it. Less hassle, right? > > > > Yes, except if your car decides to get gas when you are already late, > > speeding, trying to catch your plane. > > Ok, but if you're only packing a few hundred objects it usually won't > matter because it is fast enough that you hardly notice. ... in which case you might as well keep them loose too. > And if you don't like it, you turn it off, or don't turn it on. You seem to forget the maintenance cost of having this in the Git distribution. When something is merged in, it has to be maintained and kept working. Given the complexity of your proposal weighted against the relative benefits I remain unconvinced. Yet you didn't state what exactly is the issue you're trying to solve. If it is only to avoid running "git gc" occasionally then this clearly isn't a benefit worth the cost. If, instead, you implement it as a post-commit or post-receive hook meant for contrib/hooks/ then I wouldn't have any issue with that. Nicolas - 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
