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
