Re: [PATCH 00/15] [RFC] Maintenance jobs and job runner

From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Date: May 28, 2020, 14:50 UTC
Message-ID: <20200528145018.GA58643@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2005272334560.56@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>

Hi,

Johannes Schindelin wrote:

> So while `git gc` looks like a good candidate on its technical merits, the
> usability/discoverability point of view paints a very different picture.

Here is what I take away from that comment:

    It was a mistake for "git gc" to take responsibility for operations
    like "git pack-refs".  We should migrate to a new "git maintenance
    run" command and make "git gc" print a signpost to help people find
    the new name.

That seems like a reasonable direction to me, but as you're hinting, from a technical design perspective it doesn't change where e.g. midx maintenance operations would go. I would expect the routine maintenance command, whatever it is called, to perform such operations. I would not expect to have to choose between two subtly different maintenance commands, or in other words to have to pay as a user for an unrelated naming choice.

I think it's worth discussing naming, but it's kind of a distraction from what Brian brought up. The real question is, do we consider the existing "git gc" infrastructure such a lost cause that we should touch it as little as possible?

I don't think that was Stolee's intent --- instead, I supsect that it was just the discoverability issue you mention that led to this series forgetting about the possibility of incorporating this functionality into "git gc".

[...]

Show 7 quoted lines

> I guess I would argue for the introduction of a new command, like `git
> maintenance`, which could potentially trigger a `git gc --auto`, but is
> primarily intended to run _outside_ of the users' work hours.
>
> Once we have that, we can always figure out whether there is a convenient
> way to register this via `crontab` or Windows Task Scheduler, without
> asking the users to do all of these tedious steps manually.

Wonderful, it sounds like we're pretty much in agreement.

[...]

Show 5 quoted lines

> Therefore, I would like very much to have a `git maintenance --schedule`
> (or something like that), even if only on Windows, on the grounds alone
> that it is even more tedious to work with the Windows Task Scheduler. But
> I would prefer to have that also in my Linux setup. The convenience for
> the users (myself included) is just too compelling.

I think Josh was arguing for deferring that part to a separate series. Otherwise we could end up spending so much time focusing on scheduling and service supervision that the series gets delayed and no one benefits from Stolee's work to improve how routine packing works.

Thanks, Jonathan