On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 11:51:06AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Yes. Do you need a re-roll from me? I think the last version I sent +
> > the squash to tie the default to bitmap-writing makes the most sense.
>
> I have 9e20b390 (repack: add `repack.packKeptObjects` config var,
> 2014-02-26);
Jeff King writes:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 10:13:47AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> > Or the flip side: if the user wants to use .keep, we should drop
>> > bitmaps. My point is that we do not know which way the user wants to
>> > go, so we should not tie the options together.
>>
>> Hmph. I
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 10:09:08AM -0700, Nasser Grainawi wrote:
>
>> > Exactly. The two features (bitmaps and .keep) are not compatible with
>> > each other, so you have to prioritize one. If you are using static .keep
>> > files, you might wan
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 10:13:47AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Or the flip side: if the user wants to use .keep, we should drop
> > bitmaps. My point is that we do not know which way the user wants to
> > go, so we should not tie the options together.
>
> Hmph. I think the short of your lat
Jeff King writes:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 10:45:39AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> > Exactly. The two features (bitmaps and .keep) are not compatible with
>> > each other, so you have to prioritize one. If you are using static .keep
>> > files, you might want them to continue being respecte
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 10:09:08AM -0700, Nasser Grainawi wrote:
> > Exactly. The two features (bitmaps and .keep) are not compatible with
> > each other, so you have to prioritize one. If you are using static .keep
> > files, you might want them to continue being respected at the expense of
> > u
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 10:45:39AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Exactly. The two features (bitmaps and .keep) are not compatible with
> > each other, so you have to prioritize one. If you are using static .keep
> > files, you might want them to continue being respected at the expense of
> > us
Jeff King writes:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 10:04:44AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> I wonder if it makes sense to link it with "pack.writebitmaps" more
>> tightly, without even exposing it as a seemingly orthogonal knob
>> that can be tweaked, though.
>>
>> I think that is because I do not
On Feb 28, 2014, at 1:55 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 10:04:44AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> I wonder if it makes sense to link it with "pack.writebitmaps" more
>> tightly, without even exposing it as a seemingly orthogonal knob
>> that can be tweaked, though.
>>
>> I th
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 10:04:44AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> I wonder if it makes sense to link it with "pack.writebitmaps" more
> tightly, without even exposing it as a seemingly orthogonal knob
> that can be tweaked, though.
>
> I think that is because I do not fully understand the ", beca
Jeff King writes:
> Of all of them, I think --pack-kept-objects is probably the best. And I
> think we are hitting diminishing returns in thinking too much more on
> the name. :)
True enough.
I wonder if it makes sense to link it with "pack.writebitmaps" more
tightly, without even exposing it a
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:30:36PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> pack-kept-objects then?
> >
> > Hmm. That does address my point above, but somehow the word "kept" feels
> > awkward to me. I'm ambivalent between the two.
>
> That word does make my backside somewhat itchy ;-)
>
> Would it hel
Jeff King writes:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:10:49AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> > The best name I could come up with is "--pack-keep-objects", since that
>> > is literally what it is doing. I'm not wild about the name because it is
>> > easy to read "keep" as a verb (and "pack" as a noun
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:10:49AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > The best name I could come up with is "--pack-keep-objects", since that
> > is literally what it is doing. I'm not wild about the name because it is
> > easy to read "keep" as a verb (and "pack" as a noun). I think it's OK,
> > bu
Jeff King writes:
> Sorry, this one slipped through the cracks. Here's a re-roll addressing
> your comments.
> ...
>> - In the context of "pack-objects", the name "--honor-pack-keep"
>>makes sense; it is understood that pack-objects will _not_ remove
>>kept packfile, so "honoring" can on
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 01:21:43AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
> > The git-repack command always passes `--honor-pack-keep`
> > to pack-objects. This has traditionally been a good thing,
> > as we do not want to duplicate those objects in a new pack,
> > and we are not goi
Jeff King writes:
> The git-repack command always passes `--honor-pack-keep`
> to pack-objects. This has traditionally been a good thing,
> as we do not want to duplicate those objects in a new pack,
> and we are not going to delete the old pack.
> ...
> Note that this option just disables the pa
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 06:44:43PM -0800, Siddharth Agarwal wrote:
> On 01/23/2014 06:28 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> >I think your understanding is accurate here. So we want repack to
> >respect keep files for deletion, but we _not_ necessarily want
> >pack-objects to avoid packing an object just becau
18 matches
Mail list logo
