Hi,
Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> So while `git gc` looks like a good candidate on its technical merits, the
> usability/discoverability point of view paints a very different picture.
Here is what I take away from that comment:
It was a mistake for "git gc" to take responsibility for operations
like "git pack-refs". We should migrate to a new "git maintenance
run" command and make "git gc" print a signpost to help people find
the new name.
That seems like a reasonable direction to me, but as you're hinting,
from a technical design perspective it doesn't change where e.g. midx
maintenance operations would go. I would expect the routine
maintenance command, whatever it is called, to perform such
operations. I would not expect to have to choose between two subtly
different maintenance commands, or in other words to have to pay as a
user for an unrelated naming choice.
I think it's worth discussing naming, but it's kind of a distraction
from what Brian brought up. The real question is, do we consider the
existing "git gc" infrastructure such a lost cause that we should
touch it as little as possible?
I don't think that was Stolee's intent --- instead, I supsect that it
was just the discoverability issue you mention that led to this series
forgetting about the possibility of incorporating this functionality
into "git gc".
[...]
> I guess I would argue for the introduction of a new command, like `git
> maintenance`, which could potentially trigger a `git gc --auto`, but is
> primarily intended to run _outside_ of the users' work hours.
>
> Once we have that, we can always figure out whether there is a convenient
> way to register this via `crontab` or Windows Task Scheduler, without
> asking the users to do all of these tedious steps manually.
Wonderful, it sounds like we're pretty much in agreement.
[...]
> Therefore, I would like very much to have a `git maintenance --schedule`
> (or something like that), even if only on Windows, on the grounds alone
> that it is even more tedious to work with the Windows Task Scheduler. But
> I would prefer to have that also in my Linux setup. The convenience for
> the users (myself included) is just too compelling.
I think Josh was arguing for deferring that part to a separate series.
Otherwise we could end up spending so much time focusing on scheduling
and service supervision that the series gets delayed and no one
benefits from Stolee's work to improve how routine packing works.
Thanks,
Jonathan
