"ZheNing Hu via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> From: ZheNing Hu <adlternative@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> This commit extends the functionality of `git gc`
> by adding a new option, `--expire-to=<dir>`. Previously,
> this feature was implemented in `git repack` (see 91badeb),
> allowing users to specify a directory where unreachable and
> expired cruft packs are stored during garbage collection.
> However, users had to run `git repack --cruft --expire-to=<dir>`
> followed by `git prune` to achieve similar results within `git gc`.
>
> By introducing `--expire-to=<dir>` directly into `git gc`,
> we simplify the process for users who wish to manage their
> repository's cleanup more efficiently. This change involves
> passing the `--expire-to=<dir>` parameter through to `git repack`,
> making it easier for users to set up a backup location for cruft
> packs that will be pruned.
Today I do not have enough time to do my usual commit log message
critique. Please use "git show -s --format=reference" when
referring to an earlier commit.
> Note: When git-gc is used with both `--cruft` and `--expire-to`,
> it does not pass `-a` to git-repack to delete all unreachable
> objects as `git gc --prune=now` originally did. Instead, it
> generates a cruft pack in the directory specified by expire-to.
Is this less important than "we added --expire-to to gc that is
passed down to underlying repack" in the previous paragraph?
Not removing the unreachables too early with "repack -a" is an
essential part of the design of this new feature to allow us not to
lose the cruft objects, so I was a bit surprised that this was
described as a "Note:".
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-gc.txt b/Documentation/git-gc.txt
> index 370e22faaeb..b4c0cf02972 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-gc.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/git-gc.txt
> @@ -69,6 +69,12 @@ be performed as well.
> the `--max-cruft-size` option of linkgit:git-repack[1] for
> more.
>
> +--expire-to=<dir>::
> + When packing unreachable objects into a cruft pack, write a cruft
> + pack containing pruned objects (if any) to the directory `<dir>`.
> + See the `--expire-to` option of linkgit:git-repack[1] for
> + more.
Does "When packing unreachable objects into a cruft pack" mean that
this option is only meaningful with "--cruft"? As "--cruft" is on
by default, is it an error to pass "--no-cruft" when you use this
option?
"for more" -> "for more information" or something?
> diff --git a/builtin/gc.c b/builtin/gc.c
> index d52735354c9..8656e1caff0 100644
> --- a/builtin/gc.c
> +++ b/builtin/gc.c
> @@ -136,6 +136,7 @@ struct gc_config {
> char *prune_worktrees_expire;
> char *repack_filter;
> char *repack_filter_to;
> + char *repack_expire_to;
> unsigned long big_pack_threshold;
> unsigned long max_delta_cache_size;
> };
> @@ -432,7 +433,8 @@ static int keep_one_pack(struct string_list_item *item, void *data UNUSED)
> static void add_repack_all_option(struct gc_config *cfg,
> struct string_list *keep_pack)
> {
> - if (cfg->prune_expire && !strcmp(cfg->prune_expire, "now"))
> + if (cfg->prune_expire && !strcmp(cfg->prune_expire, "now")
> + && !(cfg->cruft_packs && cfg->repack_expire_to))
> strvec_push(&repack, "-a");
Hmph. When "--expire-to=<there>" is given, we are dropping these
unreachable objects right away, but we said "--no-cruft", then we
say "repack -a". If we have both "--cruft" and "--expire-to=<there>",
then ...
> else if (cfg->cruft_packs) {
> strvec_push(&repack, "--cruft");
> @@ -441,6 +443,8 @@ static void add_repack_all_option(struct gc_config *cfg,
> if (cfg->max_cruft_size)
> strvec_pushf(&repack, "--max-cruft-size=%lu",
> cfg->max_cruft_size);
> + if (cfg->repack_expire_to)
> + strvec_pushf(&repack, "--expire-to=%s", cfg->repack_expire_to);
... we do the usual "repack --cruft --expire-to=<there>" in the next
block.
> @@ -675,7 +679,6 @@ struct repository *repo UNUSED)
> const char *prune_expire_sentinel = "sentinel";
> const char *prune_expire_arg = prune_expire_sentinel;
> int ret;
> -
> struct option builtin_gc_options[] = {
> OPT__QUIET(&quiet, N_("suppress progress reporting")),
> { OPTION_STRING, 0, "prune", &prune_expire_arg, N_("date"),
OK.
> @@ -694,6 +697,8 @@ struct repository *repo UNUSED)
> PARSE_OPT_NOCOMPLETE),
> OPT_BOOL(0, "keep-largest-pack", &keep_largest_pack,
> N_("repack all other packs except the largest pack")),
> + OPT_STRING(0, "expire-to", &cfg.repack_expire_to, N_("dir"),
> + N_("pack prefix to store a pack containing pruned objects")),
> OPT_END()
> };
OK.
> diff --git a/t/t6500-gc.sh b/t/t6500-gc.sh
> index ee074b99b70..d4b0653a9b7 100755
> --- a/t/t6500-gc.sh
> +++ b/t/t6500-gc.sh
> @@ -339,6 +339,12 @@ test_expect_success 'gc.maxCruftSize sets appropriate repack options' '
> test_subcommand $cruft_max_size_opts --max-cruft-size=3145728 <trace2.txt
> '
>
> +test_expect_success '--expire-to sets appropriate repack options' '
> + mkdir expired &&
> + GIT_TRACE2_EVENT=$(pwd)/trace2.txt git -C cruft--max-size gc --cruft --expire-to=./expired/pack &&
> + test_subcommand $cruft_max_size_opts --expire-to=./expired/pack <trace2.txt
> +'
As "--cruft" is on by default, the command line does not have to
have it, but being explicit is good.
Should we also see what happens when "--no-cruft" is given?
Thanks.
