Re: Pushing vs. alternates

From: Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Date: Oct 24, 2006, 05:46 UTC
Message-ID: <20061024054611.GB9724@spearce.org>
In-Reply-To: <7vmz7muvqu.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines

> Petr Baudis <pasky@ucw.cz> writes:
> 
> >   I don't have time to code that myself right now, so I'm just tossing
> > an idea around - pushing to a directory with alternates set up should
> > avoid sending objects that are already in the alternate object database.
> 
> That is probably only relevant for the first time, since
> subsequent pushes have refs from its own repository that tracks
> the tips of branches that was pushed for the last time.
> 
> And first time usage when you are initializing the repository
> with alternates, you have direct access to that repository
> (that's how you can set up alternates), you can as easily do the
> initial fetch/clone as well at that time.
> 
> So it might be a nice addition but I suspect it would not matter
> much in practice.

What would be useful in practice is not unpacking the first pack pushed to the an empty repository, or better yet just dealing with converting thin packs to standalone packs rather than unpacking to loose objects when the number of objects in the incoming pack exceeds some configured threshold.

Which Linus and Nico already took stabs at doing but haven't finished...

-- 
Shawn.