Re: tb/merge-tree-write-pack, was Re: What's cooking in git.git (Nov 2023, #04; Thu, 9)

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Nov 16, 2023, 20:17 UTC
Message-ID: <20231116201756.GC1146561@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <14bdff31-5229-bbd5-3715-f77f52b832d5@gmx.de>

On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 01:57:00PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> - The scenario I want to address (and that I assumed the patch series
>   under discussion tried to address, too) is a very specific, server-side
>   scenario where many `merge-tree`/`replay` runs produce _many_ loose
>   objects. Quite a fraction of those are produced by processes that run
>   into a SIGTERM-enforced timeout, and the `tmp_objdir` approach would
>   naturally help: unneeded loose objects would not even be added to the
>   primary object database but be reaped with the temporary object
>   databases.

Thanks, this paragraph helped me to understand why you are interested in tmp_objdir in the first place (as opposed to just doing a gc-auto repack after finishing the merge).

-Peff