On 10/1/2020 8:38 PM, Đoàn Trần Công Danh wrote: > On 2020-10-01 16:38:48-0400, Derrick Stolee <stolee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> diff --git a/Documentation/git-maintenance.txt b/Documentation/git-maintenance.txt >> index 7628a6d157..52fff86844 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/git-maintenance.txt >> +++ b/Documentation/git-maintenance.txt >> @@ -37,6 +37,21 @@ register:: >> `maintenance.<task>.schedule`. The tasks that are enabled are safe >> for running in the background without disrupting foreground >> processes. >> ++ >> +If your repository has no `maintenance.<task>.schedule` configuration >> +values set, then Git will use a recommended default schedule that performs >> +background maintenance that will not interrupt foreground commands. The >> +default schedule is as follows: > > I don't mind about using a default schedule (but someone else might). > I think some distributions will be paranoia with this change and shiped > with disable by default in system config. If a user wants to prevent this schedule, then they can simply change any one of the `.schedule` or `.enabled` configs in their --global config and these defaults will not be used. Of course, perhaps you are missing the fact that "git maintenance run --schedule=<frequency>" is only run as a cron job if a user chose to start background maintenance using "git maintenance start" (or "git maintenance register" after running the 'start' subcommand in another repo). So this is _not_ starting by default without some amount of choosing to opt in. >> ++ >> +* `gc`: disabled. >> +* `commit-graph`: hourly. >> +* `prefetch`: hourly. > > However, no `prefetch` in default schedule, please. > IIUC, this is a network operation, if someone is on the go and paying > their internet based on their traffic, this will be a disaster. It _is_ a network operation. You're right that we should make it clear that network operations are being run in the background if the defaults are being used. Of course, this is why "git maintenance stop" exists. Background maintenance can be halted while not being in a mode where this maintenance is acceptable. And further: these defaults are optimized for desktop machines that are expected to always be on and connected to a non-metered network. Laptops are not always on, not always connected, and sometimes are metered. Perhaps a user should decide that they don't want to have background maintenance, and then they can choose to not opt-in. If this scenario is common enough, then we could extend the "prefetch" task to somehow detect (on some platforms) that the network connection is metered, and then not do any fetches. >> +* `loose-objects`: daily. >> +* `incremental-repack`: daily. > > And I would say no incremental-repack, too. > Users don't want to a large operation of IO on some random time of the day, > be it when they open their PC in the morning, or when they want to close > their laptop to go home. But that's exactly why incremental-repack is an improvement over a "random" instance of 'git gc --auto' going over an invisible threshold. The "incremental" nature is intended to only do a reasonable amount of work instead of rewriting everything. > ----------(Windows rant ahead) > I still remember those days that Windows 8 was introduced, > Back in that days, my computer still uses the old 7200rpm HDD. > I was super-angry that whenever Windows is started, it starts some IO > disk-caching, indexing that hung my computer for a good 10 minutes. > While that same computer can run Windows 7 and other OS fine. > I don't particularly care how much my computer is faster after that. > I want my computer usable at that time, instead of wasting a good 10 > minutes on nothing. > ---------(Windows rant end) > > Either the users know what are they doing, or we don't do anything at > all. Let's them do it on their free time. > > IOW, Please let users opt in instead of opt out of this features. But users _do_ opt-in to this feature. They need to start the maintenance at all to have this run. We just need to give them something that actually "maintains" their repository without being incredibly expensive or possibly leading to data loss. That is exactly why "incremental-repack" is chosen over the "gc" task. If there isn't enough work to be done, then this task is very cheap to do. Perhaps all of your concerns are satisfied with this reassurance that background maintenance is completely opt-in and will not be set up without a user explicitly enabling it. Thanks, -Stolee
