Johannes Sixt <johannes.sixt@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Sunday 18 November 2007 19:39, Junio C Hamano wrote: > ... >> 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) ;-) Because my point was not "don't prune is good enough", I think you are judging from too small number of responses (in fact, zero). My point was that even the existing setup that is well known to the public (i.e. repo.or.cz) does not seem to be controlled, and adding a nicer mechanism (e.g. I do not think there currently is a canned way to prepare a pack that contains only unreachable objects --- you need to script it anew) for a better control may not help the situation much, unless it is actually used. - 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
