Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes:

> Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy  <pclo...@gmail.com> writes:
>> Housekeeping jobs like auto gc generally should not get in the way.
>> Users who are pushing may not want to wait until auto gc is done on
>> the server. Give a hint for those users that it's safe now to break
>> "git push" and stop waiting.
>> Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclo...@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  This bandage patch may be a good compromise between running auto gc
>>  and not annoying users much.
>>  If I'm not mistaken, when ^C on "git push" this way, gc will still be
>>  running until it needs to print something out (which it should not
>>  normally because of --quiet). The user won't see gc errors, but the
>>  user generally can't do much anyway.
> If you are over local transport, I would think you would kill the
> both ends.  Also, wouldn't killing "git push" before it is done
> talking with the receive-pack stop it before it has a chance to
> update the remote tracking refs to pretend as if it fetched from
> there immediately after a push?
> So, no. I do not think we should ever encourage "if this bothers
> you, you can ^C it".  Making it not to bother is fine, though.

Instead of adding a boolean --break-ok that is hidden, why not
adding an exposed boolean --daemonize, and let auto-gc run in the
background?  With the recent "do not let more than one gc run at the
same time", that should give a lot more pleasant end user
experience, no?
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