"ZheNing Hu via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > From: ZheNing Hu <adlternative@xxxxxxxxx> > > The server uses delta compression during git clone to reduce > the amount of data transferred over the network, but delta > compression for large binary blobs often does not reduce > storage size significantly and wastes a lot of CPU. Git now > disables delta compression for objects that meet these conditions: > > 1. files that have -delta set in .gitattributes > 2. files that its size exceed the big_file_threshold > > However, in 1, .gitattributes needs to be set manually by the user, > and in most cases the user does not actively set it, and it is not > something that can be actively adjusted on the server aside. In 2, > the big_file_threshold now defaults to 512MB, and many binary files > smaller than that will be uselessly delta-compressed, and this is > made worse if the server actively increases the big_file_threshold. Who are you trying to help, though? The user has to somehow manually cause the --exclude-delta=<pattern> to be added at the server side, so I do not see the new feature as correcting the weakness you perceive in the approach to mark the undeltifiable blobs in the attributes system at all. Does this feature assume that the server operator knows better than the project that can maintain their own .gitattributes in tree? If so, the server operator can already use <bare-repository>/info/attributes file to achieve that already, no? Now hosting sites may not give hosted projects flexibility to configure their own server side repositories, like its "config" and "info/attributes", but that limitation would equally apply what command line options pack-objects runs with. So, again, it is not clear who this patch is trying to help and how. If we assume that the hosting operators can give project owners more control of how the server side is configured, then we can do that already without a new option, no? IOW > Therefore, we need a way to be able to actively skip the delta > compression of some files on the server. I do not quite follow the "Therefore" here.
