On Fri, May 24 2019, SZEDER Gábor wrote: > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 01:58:03PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 24 2019, SZEDER Gábor wrote: >> >> > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 01:17:06PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, May 24 2019, SZEDER Gábor wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 11:01:39AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >> >> >> I don't think it's a performance problem to have an old commit-graph >> >> >> lying around. But if you turn on the commit-graph, run gc a bunch, then >> >> >> turn it off in config we'll have it lying around forever, even if you do >> >> >> subsequent gc's. >> >> >> >> >> >> So I think we should delete such things on the general principle that >> >> >> the end-state of a gc's shouldn't be the accumulation of the values of >> >> >> past configuration options if we can help it. >> >> >> >> >> >> Maybe that screws over other users who did a "commit-graph write" >> >> >> without setting gc.writeCommitGraph, but I think the only sane thing to >> >> >> do is to make "gc" fully 'own' such things if its turned on at all. >> >> > >> >> > Note that there is 'core.commitGraph' as well; as long as it's >> >> > enabled, no commit-graph files should be deleted. >> >> >> >> Why? If we won't update it or write it if it's not there, why keep it >> >> around? >> > >> > To read it, if 'core.commitGraph' says that is should be read. >> > >> >> It means the commit-graph code and anything else (like bitmaps) needs to >> >> deal with stale data for the common and default gc --auto case. >> >> >> >> You also can't have e.g. a global core.commitGraph=true config along >> >> with a per-repo gc.writeCommitGraph=true config do what you expect. >> >> >> >> Now just because you wanted to write it for some you'll end up keeping >> >> it around forever because you'd also want to optimistically always use >> >> it if it's there. >> > >> > This is exactly what I expect it to do. >> >> Do you also expect base packs with an associated bitmap to have an >> implicit *.keep flag under gc with pack.writeBitmaps=false and >> pack.useBitmaps=true? > > I don't understand what an "implicit *.keep flag" is[...] A .keep means we keep the pack, and e.g. gc.bigPackThreshold is effectively an implicit *.keep flag on a pack matching some critera, which in this case caused this issue of a stale *.bitmap file (since the pack wasn't touched, neither was the bitmap). > [...]However, since a reachability bitmap is always associated with a > pack, but the commit-graph is not, I don't think this is a valid > comparison. I don't either, I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from, and I still don't. That bitmaps are associated with specific packs and the commit graph isn't is an internal implementation detail. Users who care about that distinction either don't use "git gc" or would be willing to tweak its settings. For the rest I think removing existing side-indexes is a good default for the practical reasons mentioned upthread. >> >> Note that I'm talking about the *default* gc semantics, they don't have >> >> to cover all advanced use-cases, just be good enough for most, and it's >> >> also important that they're as simple as possible, and don't result in >> >> stuff like "my performance sucks because I turned this config option on >> >> once a year ago for 2 days".
