Re: [PATCH 1/4] Build in git-repack
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Aug 7, 2013, 15:48 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7v38qlec2w.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <vpqzjsth8wt.fsf@anie.imag.fr>
Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> writes:
Show 26 quoted lines
> [ It's cool you're working on this, I'd really like a git-repack in C. > That would fix this > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/226458 ] > > Stefan Beller <stefanbeller@googlemail.com> writes: > >> From: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> >> >> pack-objects learns a few more options to take over what's been done >> by git-repack.sh. cmd_repack() becomes a wrapper around >> cmd_pack_objects(). > > I think the patch would read easier if these were split into two > patches: one doing the real stuff in pack-objects, and then getting rid > of git-repack.sh to replace it with a trivial built-in. > > Actually, I'm wondering why pack-objects requires so much changes. > git-repack.sh was already a relatively small wrapper around > pack-objects, and did not need the new options you add, so why are they > needed? In particular adding the new --update-info option that just does > >> + if (repack_flags & REPACK_UPDATE_INFO) >> + update_server_info(0); > > seems overkill to me: why don't you just let cmd_repack call > update_server_info(0)?
My feeling exactly. I would rather see a patch that does not touch pack-objects at all, and use run_command() interface to spawn it. Once we do have to pack, the necessary processing cycle will dwarf the fork/exec latency anyway, no?