On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 07:10:15PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 01:03:25AM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
> > > You may also want to use "--threads=1" to avoid non-determinism in the
> > > generated packs. In theory, both repos would then produce identical base
> > >
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 01:03:25AM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> > You may also want to use "--threads=1" to avoid non-determinism in the
> > generated packs. In theory, both repos would then produce identical base
> > packs, though it does not seem to do so in practice (I didn't dig in
On Wed, Jan 24 2018, Jeff King jotted:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:03:47PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
>> This produces a total of 0 blocks that are the same. If after the repack
>> we throw this in there after the repack:
>>
>> echo 5be1f00a9a | git pack-objects --no-reuse-delta
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 12:06:59AM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> >> Has anyone here barked up this tree before? Suggestions? Tips on where
> >> to start hacking the repack code to accomplish this would be most
> >> welcome.
> >
> > Does this overlap with the desire to have resumable clon
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:03:47PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> This produces a total of 0 blocks that are the same. If after the repack
> we throw this in there after the repack:
>
> echo 5be1f00a9a | git pack-objects --no-reuse-delta --no-reuse-object
> --revs .git/objects/pack/
On Wed, Jan 24 2018, Elijah Newren jotted:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 2:03 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
> wrote:
>> If you have a bunch of git repositories cloned of the same project on
>> the same filesystem, it would be nice of the packs that are produced
>> would be friendly to block-level dedu
On Wed, Jan 24 2018, Junio C. Hamano jotted:
> Mike Hommey writes:
>
>> FWIW, I sidestep the problem entirely by using alternatives.
>
> That's a funny way to use the word "side-step", I would say, as the
> alternate object store support is there exactly for this use case.
Things you can't do w
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 2:03 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
wrote:
> If you have a bunch of git repositories cloned of the same project on
> the same filesystem, it would be nice of the packs that are produced
> would be friendly to block-level deduplication.
>
> This would save space, and the blocks
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 02:23:57PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Mike Hommey writes:
>
> > FWIW, I sidestep the problem entirely by using alternatives.
>
> That's a funny way to use the word "side-step", I would say, as the
> alternate object store support is there exactly for this use case.
I
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> If you have a bunch of git repositories cloned of the same project on
> the same filesystem, it would be nice of the packs that are produced
> would be friendly to block-level deduplication.
Fwiw, I currently get around this when mirroring by having all
the remote
Mike Hommey writes:
> FWIW, I sidestep the problem entirely by using alternatives.
That's a funny way to use the word "side-step", I would say, as the
alternate object store support is there exactly for this use case.
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:03:47PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> If you have a bunch of git repositories cloned of the same project on
> the same filesystem, it would be nice of the packs that are produced
> would be friendly to block-level deduplication.
>
> This would save space, and t
If you have a bunch of git repositories cloned of the same project on
the same filesystem, it would be nice of the packs that are produced
would be friendly to block-level deduplication.
This would save space, and the blocks would be more likely to be in
cache when you access them, likely speeding
13 matches
Mail list logo