Re: dangling commits and blobs: is this normal?

From: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@imag.fr>
Date: Apr 23, 2009, 11:51 UTC
Message-ID: <vpq8wlr4mh0.fsf@bauges.imag.fr>
In-Reply-To: <20090422190856.GB13424@coredump.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

Show 16 quoted lines

> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 08:15:56PM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote:
>
>> Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> writes:
>> 
>> > Why so?  Having fewer packs is always a good thing.  Having only one 
>> > pack is of course the optimal situation. 
>> 
>> Good and optimal wrt Git, but not wrt an incremental backup system for
>> example. I have a "git gc" running daily in a cron job in each of my
>> repositories, but to be nice with my sysadmin, I don't want to rewrite
>> tens of megabytes of data each night just because I commited a 2 lines
>> patch somewhere.
>
> You can mark your "big" pack with a .keep, then do your nightly gc as
> usual. You'll have a smaller pack being rewritten each night. When it
> gets big enough, drop the .keep, gc, and then .keep the new pack.

(thanks, I wasn't aware of this .keep thing before reading this thread)

> Yes, it's a bit more work for you, but having "git gc" optimize by
> default for git's performance seems to be the only sensible course.

Sure. Sorry if my message read as "git gc does the wrong thing", I was just mentionning that it's not optimal with respect to everything.

-- 
Matthieu