On Nov 28, 2007 3:01 PM, Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, David Tweed wrote: > > > Hi, I'd like to check if there's any reason in the overall design of > > git which would make deleting tmp_pack's that have suffered > > write errors a bad idea? (Before I look further into this I may be missing > > a good reason why they shouldn't be auto-deleted.) [snip] > I'd suggest they get removed a part of the prune command. Mmm, I hadn't looked at the source and spotted the prune is actually a separate process to the repack. From a policy POV is it ok to assume any tmp_pack*'s existing when prune is run can be deleted? (I know you're not supposed to be having any other git ops going on whilst git gc works.) Now I know they aren't being kept around for, say, "emergency error recovery" I may look to see if I can come up with an acceptable patch. (Don't hold your breath waiting.) -- cheers, dave tweed__________________________ david.tweed@xxxxxxxxx Rm 124, School of Systems Engineering, University of Reading. "we had no idea that when we added templates we were adding a Turing- complete compile-time language." -- C++ standardisation committee - 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
