Martin Fick writes:
> On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 04:53:36 pm Junio C Hamano
> wrote:
>> Martin Fick writes:
>> > One suggestion would be to change the repack code to
>> > create pack filenames based on the sha1 of the
>> > contents of the pack file instead of on the sha1 of
>> > the objects
On Thursday, August 15, 2013 01:46:02 am Stefan Beller
wrote:
> On 08/15/2013 01:25 AM, Martin Fick wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 04:51:14 pm Matthieu Moy
> >
> > wrote:
> >> Antoine Pelisse writes:
> >>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Stefan Beller
> >>>
> >>> wrote:
> buil
On 08/14/2013 07:04 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Stefan Beller writes:
>
>> diff --git a/builtin/repack.c b/builtin/repack.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000..d39c34e
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/builtin/repack.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,410 @@
>> +/*
>> + * The shell version was written by Linus Torval
On 08/15/2013 12:59 AM, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> Junio C Hamano writes:
>
>> Stefan Beller writes:
>>
>>> I asked for a todo wish list a few weeks ago, but got no real answer,
>>> but rather: "Pick your choice and try to come up with good patches".
>>
>> Hmph, I hope that wasn't me.
>>
>> There are
On 08/15/2013 01:25 AM, Martin Fick wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 04:51:14 pm Matthieu Moy
> wrote:
>> Antoine Pelisse writes:
>>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Stefan Beller
>>>
>>> wrote:
builtin/repack.c | 410
+
>>>
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Matthieu Moy
wrote:
> There's a real problem with git-repack being shell (I already mentionned
> it in the previous thread about the rewrite): it creates dependencies on
> a few external binaries, and a restricted server may not have them.
There's also the Windows
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Martin Fick wrote:
> The script really is mostly a policy script, and with the
> discussions happening in other threads about how to improve
> git gc, I think it is helpful to potentially be able to
> quickly modify the policies in this script, it makes it
> easie
On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 05:25:42 pm Martin Fick wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 04:51:14 pm Matthieu Moy
>
> wrote:
> > Antoine Pelisse writes:
> > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Stefan Beller
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >> builtin/repack.c | 410
> > >> +
On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 04:53:36 pm Junio C Hamano
wrote:
> Martin Fick writes:
> > One suggestion would be to change the repack code to
> > create pack filenames based on the sha1 of the
> > contents of the pack file instead of on the sha1 of
> > the objects in the packfile. ...
> > I am n
On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 04:51:14 pm Matthieu Moy
wrote:
> Antoine Pelisse writes:
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Stefan Beller
> >
> > wrote:
> >> builtin/repack.c | 410
> >> +
> >> contrib/examples/git-repack.sh | 194
> >> +
Junio C Hamano writes:
> Stefan Beller writes:
>
>> I asked for a todo wish list a few weeks ago, but got no real answer,
>> but rather: "Pick your choice and try to come up with good patches".
>
> Hmph, I hope that wasn't me.
>
> There are some good ones here;
>
> http://git-blame.blogspot.co
Martin Fick writes:
> One suggestion would be to change the repack code to create
> pack filenames based on the sha1 of the contents of the pack
> file instead of on the sha1 of the objects in the packfile.
> ...
> I am not 100% sure if the change in naming convention I
> propose wouldn't ca
Stefan Beller writes:
> I asked for a todo wish list a few weeks ago, but got no real answer,
> but rather: "Pick your choice and try to come up with good patches".
Hmph, I hope that wasn't me.
There are some good ones here;
http://git-blame.blogspot.com/search?q=leftover
Some are trivial,
Antoine Pelisse writes:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Stefan Beller
> wrote:
>> builtin/repack.c | 410
>> +
>> contrib/examples/git-repack.sh | 194 +++
>> git-repack.sh | 194 ---
>
> I
On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 04:16:35 pm Stefan Beller
wrote:
> On 08/14/2013 07:25 PM, Martin Fick wrote:
> > I have been holding off a bit on expressing this
> > opinion too because I don't want to squash someone's
> > energy to improve things, and because I am not yet a
> > git dev, but since
On 08/14/2013 07:25 PM, Martin Fick wrote:
> I have been holding off a bit on expressing this opinion too
> because I don't want to squash someone's energy to improve
> things, and because I am not yet a git dev, but since it was
> brought up anyway...
It's ok, if you knew a better topic to wor
Antoine Pelisse writes:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Stefan Beller
> wrote:
>> builtin/repack.c | 410
>> +
>> contrib/examples/git-repack.sh | 194 +++
>> git-repack.sh | 194 ---
>
> I
On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 10:49:58 am Antoine Pelisse
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Stefan Beller
>
> wrote:
> > builtin/repack.c | 410
> > +
> > contrib/examples/git-repack.sh | 194
> > +++ git-repack.sh
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 07:04:37PM +0200, Stefan Beller wrote:
> But apart from my blabbering, I think ivegy made a good point:
> The C parts just don't rely on external things, but only libc and
> kernel, so it may be nicer than a shell script. Also as it is used
> serversided, the performance as
On 08/14/2013 06:49 PM, Antoine Pelisse wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Stefan Beller
> wrote:
>> builtin/repack.c | 410
>> +
>> contrib/examples/git-repack.sh | 194 +++
>> git-repack.sh | 194
Stefan Beller writes:
> diff --git a/builtin/repack.c b/builtin/repack.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000..d39c34e
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/builtin/repack.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,410 @@
> +/*
> + * The shell version was written by Linus Torvalds (2005) and many others.
> + * This is a translation int
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Stefan Beller
wrote:
> builtin/repack.c | 410
> +
> contrib/examples/git-repack.sh | 194 +++
> git-repack.sh | 194 ---
I'm still not sure I understand the tr
* Suggestions by Matthieu Moy have been included.
* I think it is completed apart from small todos and bugfixes.
* breaks the test suite, first breakage is t5301 (gc, sliding window)
Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller
---
Makefile | 2 +-
builtin.h | 1 +
23 matches
Mail list logo
