Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > "Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > I think git-clone marking a 150M linux-2.6 pack with .keep is wrong; > > most users working with the linux-2.6 sources have sufficient > > hardware to deal with the disk IO required to copy that with 100% > > delta reuse. But I have a repository at day-job with a 600M pack, > > that's starting to head into the realm where git-gc while running > > on battery on a laptop would prefer to have that .keep. > > Perhaps clone can decide to keep the .keep file depending on the size of > the pack then? Yea, I think that's the better thing to do here. I'm not sure where the cut-off is, maybe its <512M delete the .keep once the refs are inplace and the objects are ensured to be reachable. Of course this does not fix the issue Nico was looking at. We shouldn't be seeing a 98M explosion with objects duplicated from the .keep pack into the new pack. -- Shawn. -- 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
