On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 08:11:33AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 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.
Good points. Explicitly saying "repack --depth=..." carries a lot more
weight to me than "git gc --auto" randomly kicking in, as far as knowing
that what the user actually wants. My patch doesn't differentiate, of
course, but I think it could.
The other problem with my patch is the fact that we don't do a good job
of finding new, in-limit deltas for the ones we discard. If you want to
do that, you really need to "git repack -f" (at least with the current
code). At which point we do not reuse the on-disk deltas at all, and the
problem is moot (you could also interpret the fact that the user did
_not_ pass "-f" as "you want to reuse deltas, which means you want to
reuse even long chains", but as you've argued above, you can make a lot
of guesses about the user's intention from what they did or did not
So if we were to go this route, I don't think my patch is quite
sufficient; we'd want something else on top to do a better job of
finding replacement deltas.
Regarding my "does not seem that effective" above, I think we should
drop the aggressive depth to 50, and I just posted a patch with
reasoning and numbers:
That's maybe orthogonal, but it does remove the weird "gc --aggressive
followed by gc --auto produces a bad pack" issue, because unless you are
doing something clever, the depth will always be 50 (modulo people who
did an aggressive pack with an older version of git :-/ ).
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