On Sunday 18 November 2007 19:39, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Sixt <johannes.sixt@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Then the strategy of garbage collection can be arranged in the following > > way: > > > > - Repack by starting at the "most complete" repo and work towards the > > "most borrowing" ones. During this phase "attic" packs are created. > > Borrowing repos get a chance to salvage objects before the alternates > > prune them away. > > > > - Prune by starting at the "most borrowing" repo and work towards the > > "most complete" ones. During this phase the "attic" packs are cleaned up. > > > > What do you think? Is this a way for a solution? > > I would imagine that would work as long as it can be controlled > when all the involved repositories are repacked and pruned, such > as on repo.or.cz case (but on the other hand it is not really > controlled well there and that is the reason you wrote the > message X-<). Well, I think in many situations pack and prune can be controlled. To be precise, if alternates are used pack and prune *must* be controlled. Currently, the control is very simple: "don't prune" (and I don't recall ATM what you must not do when you repack). Anyway, judging from the responses so far it seems that people can live with "don't prune" (or not using alternates) ;-) Repositories getting broken this way isn't exactly my itch, either, so... I spelled out a possible solution if someone wants to pick up the topic. -- Hannes - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
