From: Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 17:54:08 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pack-objects: re-validate data we copy from elsewhere.
Message-ID: <20060902175408.GD27826@spearce.org>
In-Reply-To: <7vodty1swz.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
> Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> writes:
> 
> > I think the better thing to do here is to not repack objects which
> > are already contained in very large packs.  Just leave them be.
> 
> I've been thinking about updating rev-list so that repack
> can be used to organize packs into zero or more "archive packs"
> and one "active pack".
> 
> repack without -a essentially boils down to:
> 
> 	rev-list --objects --all --unpacked |
>         pack-objects $new_pack
> 
> which picks up all live loose objects and create a new pack.
> 
> If rev-list had an extention that lets you say
> 
> 	rev-list --objects --all --unpacked=$active_pack |
> 	pack-objects $new_pack

Hmm.  Seems very reasonable actually.  :-)

How do we pick the "active pack" in git-repack.sh?

How about "--include-pack=$active_pack" instead of
"--unpacked=$active_pack"?  The latter just reads really funny to me.

-- 
Shawn.

-- 
VGER BF report: S 0.9993