On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:03:06AM +0200, Johan Herland wrote: > Yes, for many repos it does not make much sense to pack branches. But in the > case where the repo has many inactive branches (I have repos with 1000 > branches where at most 5-10 are still active), I'd much rather pack all > branches and then later "unpack" the active ones, than write all > those "loose" refs as separate files onto the filesystem (e.g. in CygWin > *shudder*). In any case, the user normally does not work actively on > hundreds of branches, so the overhead of "unpacking" active branches should > be fairly negligible in any case. What I was concerned about was that pack-refs would continue to pack active branches forever, because by default it repacks branches that are already packed. However, it seems that git-gc just passes --all anyway, so it presumably is not a problem. And at the very least, clone is then consistent with the auto-gc behavior, which makes sense. So I withdraw my complaint. -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
