Hi Stolee, On Thu, 28 May 2020, Derrick Stolee wrote: > 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. Great! I look forward to reviewing your next patch series iteration, whenever you're ready. Ciao, Dscho > > 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 >
