Duy Nguyen gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 7:36 PM, chris hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Junio C Hamano pobox.com> writes:
> >> 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 re
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 7:36 PM, chris wrote:
> Junio C Hamano pobox.com> writes:
>> 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 t
Junio C Hamano pobox.com> writes:
> 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
Junio C Hamano writes:
> Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy 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 wai
Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy 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
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
---
This bandage patch may
6 matches
Mail list logo
