On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 11:01:55PM -0500, drafnel@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> - keep_unreachable=--keep-unreachable ;;
> + keep_unreachable=t ;;
Can we call this something else (like unpack_unreachable) since it now
has nothing to do with the --keep-unreachable flag?
Also, should --keep-unreachable be deprecated / removed?
> + *)
> + rm -f "$e.idx" "$e.keep"
> + if test -n "$keep_unreachable" &&
> + test -f "$e.pack"
> + then
> + git unpack-objects < "$e.pack" || {
> + echo >&2 "Failed unpacking unreachable objects from redundant pack file $e.pack"
> + exit 1
> + }
> + fi
I still like Geert's suggestion of unpacking them to a _different_
place. That helps to avoid spurious "gc --auto" invocations caused by
too many prunable objects. Though it certainly doesn't solve it, and
maybe that just needs to be fixed separately.
Possibly the "gc --auto" test should be:
- count objects; if too few, exit
- count unreachable loose objects; if too few, exit
- run gc
That means having a lot of unreachable objects will still incur some
extra processing, but not as much as a full repack. And it won't bug the
user with a "you need to repack" message.
-Peff
--
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
