On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Johan Herland wrote: > On Friday 18 April 2008, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > > This is my latest version, rebased approximately on current master (or > > recent maint, I guess). It's missing all of Johan's stuff, which is tests > > for stuff I've fixed > > Does this mean you no longer need the tests, or that you want me to resend? I have them, but my patch-sending process isn't set up for sending other people's patches without forging their email, and I wanted to get this series out, and they're not critical, so I skipped them for now. > > and (after this series) a series to make the clone generate packed refs. > > I'll resend the series once your work has settled down and landed in "next". > > BTW, I noticed in your repo (at iabervon.org) that you put "if (0)" around > the code generating packed-refs (using the old one instead), and added the > following note to the commit message: It was really mostly that the version I have in there doesn't pass the tests, due to not having the thing to filter packed refs. > I made this compile-time configurable because I'm not sure we want to > pack unconditionally. > > We should probably figure out the right thing to do here. AFAICS, > compile-time configurability is only a temporary measure, and we basically > have to choose between: > > 1. Add a command-line option (and config variable?) for controlling > whether "git clone" generates packed refs. > > 2. Make "git clone" unconditionally generate packed refs. > > Currently, I'm leaning towards (2), since I don't think there's enough > drawbacks with generating packed-refs to justify adding a command-line > option. AFAICS, the only drawback is that reflogs aren't > created/initialized on clone, but I got the feeling that this was not > particularly important. Quoting Junio from an earlier thread: > > Not writing reflogs is a _different_ behaviour from the previous, but I > suspect it might even be an improvement. When you have 1000 remote > branches, probably most of them are not even active. > > If there are good arguments for going with (1), I'd love to hear them. I think it's fine, actually (now that you've not test corrections that work for it); but I'd like to have builtin-clone land without any changes in behaviour, and then get this sort of improvement. -Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank*
