Re: [PATCH 0/6] [RFC] partial-clone: add ability to refetch with expanded filter

From: Robert Coup <robert@coup.net.nz>
Date: Feb 16, 2022, 13:24 UTC
Message-ID: <CACf-nVfX-R6wDc+YVVOzQsm9werTON1zjwitScr-Kh4yUvc6VA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACf-nVdmWyDnhJC=ikx85UST=u2ENAc4DhJJCp5c030Vb9=4+Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Derrick,

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 at 15:02, Robert Coup <robert@coup.net.nz> wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 at 20:13, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> > "Robert Coup via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
> > >  1. This will produce duplicated objects between the existing and newly
> > >     fetched packs, but gc will clean them up.
> >
> > Hopefully, at the end of this
> > operation, we should garbage collect the duplicated objects by
> > default (with an option to turn it off)?
>
> I haven't explicitly looked into invoking gc yet, but yes, it'd be a bit of
> a waste if it wasn't kicked off by default. Maybe reusing gc.auto

Just looking into this: after a fetch, run_auto_maintenance() is called, which invokes `git maintenance run --auto` (being the successor to `git gc --auto`)...

In the refilter (repair) case, we'll have a new pack which substantially duplicates what's in our existing packs. I'm after some advice here: I'm not sure whether I want to encourage a gc pack consolidation, an incremental repack, both, neither, or something else?

My current train of thought is it invokes `git maintenance run --auto` with gc.autoPackLimit=1 to force a gc pack consolidation if it's not currently =0 (disabled), and with maintenance.incremental-repack.auto=-1 if it's not currently =0 (disabled) to force an incremental repack if someone doesn't want to do pack consolidations.

In all cases the various enabled-ness settings should still be honoured to skip tasks if the user doesn't want them ever happening automatically.

Implementation-wise I guess we'll need run_auto_maintenance() to be able to pass some config options through to the maintenance subprocess.

Does this sound like a reasonable approach?

Thanks,

Rob :)