Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:
> So considering "--depth" as a space-saving measure for --aggressive does
> not seem that effective. But it feels weird to quietly drop actions
> people might have done with previous aggressive runs.
That argument cuts both ways, doesn't it?
If the user explicitly asks to use lower "--depth" from the command
line when the second repack runs, the intention is clear: the
existing pack may use delta chains that are too long and is
detrimental to the run-time performance, and the user wants to
correct it by repacking with shorter delta chain.
Should the act of letting "gc --auto" use lower "--depth", by not
configuring to always use deeper chain, be interpreted the same way?
I am not sure. The old packing with large --depth is something the
user did long time ago, and the decision the user made not to use
large depth always is also something the user did long time ago. I
do not think it is so cut-and-dried which one of the two conflicting
wishes we should honor when running the second repack, especially
when it is run unattended like "gc --auto" does.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html