On 5/28/2020 11:03 AM, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> 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 am fine with that, as long as the "new" thing will take over what >> "git gc" currently does. > > Good reminder, thank you. > > Yes, as long as we end up replacing the old thing, making a parallel > new thing (e.g. with a config option for switching between during a > transition period) can be a fine approach. Thanks for the discussion, everyone. I'm sorry that I'm very late in providing a new RFC that takes this approach, but yes I intend to create the "single entry point" for maintenance activities, and incorporate auto-GC as a default option there. Something that is a good long-term goal is to have the new maintenance entry point replace the "git gc --auto" calls, so we have better customization of post-command "automatic" maintenance. This can be done without any of the "background" part of my original RFC. I've just been to busy with other tasks to devote the deep focus that this feature deserves. Thanks for your patience. -Stolee
