Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Fri, 9 May 2008, Brandon Casey wrote: > >> Geert Bosch wrote: >>> On May 9, 2008, at 00:19, Jeff King wrote: >>> >>>> I like it. It makes an easy rule to say "packed objects _never_ get >>>> pruned, they only get demoted to loose objects." And then of course >>>> we have sane rules for pruning loose objects. >>> Isn't there an issue with the "git gc" triggering because there >>> may be too many loose unreferenced objects? >>> Still, I do like the approach. >> This would be an argument for going the extra mile and having the loose >> objects adopt the timestamp of their pack file. In the normal case they >> would probably be pruned immediately during the same git-gc run. > > Well, not necessarily. If you created a large branch yesterday and you > are deleting it today, then if you repacked in between means that those > loose objects won't be more than one day old. Yet there could be enough > of them to trigger auto gc. But that auto gc won't pack those objects > since they are unreferenced. Hence auto gc will trigger all the time > without making any progress. That's true, but the intermediate repack is not the cause here. You'd be in the same situation if a large branch was created yesterday and then deleted today even if packing had never occurred. I do see your point, but you should have said a large branch created a month ago, deleted today, but repacked yesterday. :) -brandon -- 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
