Re: Big repo not shrinking on repack or gc?

From: Bryan Turner <bturner@atlassian.com>
Date: Jan 15, 2015, 01:23 UTC
Message-ID: <CAGyf7-EL03E8oFcuDzGcmN4bKQhroHw-T4Azm4mb0QX9F40RFw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqmw5lb7ho.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 4:24 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 19 quoted lines

> Andreas Krey <a.krey@gmx.de> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 07:49:36 +0000, Jeff King wrote:
>> ...
>>> You don't need the "-f" here. Just "git repack -ad" should be enough
>>> (and the "-f" probably makes it _way_ slower).
>>
>> Indeed, factor four.
>>
>> However, my expectation is that a repack -ad will remove all the
>> old pack files, as what is in there is either referenced and put
>> into the new pack, or dropped => there should be a single pack file
>> afterwards.
>>
>> This is not the case. :-( (Done only with 1.8.2 due to
>> lack of compilers for this box.)
>
> Guess in the dark: "ls -l .git/objects/pack"
> Do you see any .keep files?

I'm one of the Stash developers and just noticed this thread. If the repository in question has been forked via Stash there likely _will_ be .keep files. Stash uses alternates for forks, so it's possible, by deleting those kept packs and pruning objects (which you've already done I see) that you will corrupt, or have already corrupted, some number of the forks. (At the moment Stash packs "garbage" into a "dead pack" which it flags with a .keep, to ensure forks don't lose access to objects that once existed upstream that they still reference.)

> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html