Re: [PATCH v2 05/14] commit-graph: implement git-commit-graph --write
- From
Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
- Date
- Feb 6, 2018, 18:55 UTC
- Message-ID
- <4dce1997-e0fe-8a7f-622f-94f409f822ec@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqd11jb7ca.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
On 2/5/2018 1:48 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 24 quoted lines
> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes: > >> The big advantage of your scheme is that you can update the graph index >> without repacking. The traditional advice has been that you should >> always do a full repack during a gc (since it gives the most delta >> opportunities). So metadata like reachability bitmaps were happy to tied >> to packs, since you're repacking anyway during a gc. But my >> understanding is that this doesn't really fly with the Windows >> repository, where it's simply so big that you never obtain a single >> pack, and just pass around slices of history in pack format. >> >> So I think I'm OK with the direction here of keeping metadata caches >> separate from the pack storage. > OK. I guess that the topology information surviving repacking is a > reason good enough to keep this separate from pack files, and I > agree with your "If they're not tied to packs,..." below, too. > > Thanks. > >> If they're not tied to packs, then I think having a separate builtin >> like this is the best approach. It gives you a plumbing command to >> experiment with, and it can easily be called from git-gc. >> >> -Peff
Thanks for all the advice here. In addition to the many cleanups that were suggested, I'm going to take a try at the "subcommand" approach. I'll use git-submodule--helper and git-remote as models for my implementation.
Thanks, -Stolee