Ramkumar Ramachandra <artag...@gmail.com> writes:

> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> it is
>> not a problem for the pack that consolidates young objects into a
>> single pack to contain some unreachable crufts.
> So far, we have never considered putting unreachable objects in packs.
> Let me ask the obvious question first: what happens when I push? Do I
> pack up all the loose objects quickly (without bothering about
> reachability) and send unreachable cruft to the server?


I thought the discussion was about making the local gc cheaper, and
the "Imagine we have a cheap way" was to address it by assuming that
the daily "pack young objects into a single pack" can be sped up if
we did not have to traverse history.  More permanent packs (the
older ones in "set of packs staggered by age" Martin proposes) in
the repository should go through the normal history traversal route.

And of course we do not transfer objects that are not asked for from
or to a repository over pack tranfer.

Most importantly, it is not about butchering the pack machinery in
such a way that we can create _only_ such "non history traversal"

So I do not see how that question is "obvious".  The question
obviously pointless and misses the mark by wide margin?  The
question makes it obvious that whoever asks it does not understand
how Git works?

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

Reply via email to