# gc/repack has no option to lose grafted parents 4 messages from 2014-03-06 to 2014-03-07. Participants: Martin Langhoff, Junio C Hamano, Duy Nguyen. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/36079 ## Martin Langhoff, 2014-03-06 23:07 Subject: gc/repack has no option to lose grafted parents Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CACPiFCLqa%3DZQM6Azh2G5hwBCMx96Cxa5BMN%3D-2aCy5x%3DYhBpGg%40mail.gmail.com ``` Back in http://git.661346.n2.nabble.com/PATCH-0-2-Make-git-gc-more-robust-with-regard-to-grafts-td3310281.html we got gc/repack to be safer for users who might be shooting themselves in the foot. Would a patch be welcome to add --discard-grafted-objects ? or --keep-real-parents=idontthinkso ? cheers, m -- martin.langhoff@gmail.com - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first ~ http://docs.moodle.org/en/User:Martin_Langhoff ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2014-03-06 23:26 Subject: Re: gc/repack has no option to lose grafted parents Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/xmqqwqg6vrht.fsf%40gitster.dls.corp.google.com In-Reply-To: ``` Martin Langhoff writes: > Back in http://git.661346.n2.nabble.com/PATCH-0-2-Make-git-gc-more-robust-with-regard-to-grafts-td3310281.html > we got gc/repack to be safer for users who might be shooting > themselves in the foot. > > Would a patch be welcome to add --discard-grafted-objects ? or > --keep-real-parents=idontthinkso ? > > cheers, Given that we in general frown upon long-term use of grafts (or "replace" for that matter), I am not sure if we want to go in that direction. Just a knee-jerk reaction, though. ``` ## Martin Langhoff, 2014-03-06 23:36 Subject: Re: gc/repack has no option to lose grafted parents Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CACPiFCLgoGP59sW73YFCt8Wq4hpxZUb0PBF-DzHz0JdxrYo4rw%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: ``` On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Given that we in general frown upon long-term use of grafts (or > "replace" for that matter), I am not sure if we want to go in that > direction. > > Just a knee-jerk reaction, though. Fair enough. If I state my actual goals -- discarding old, uninteresting history, in a "rolling" fashion? (periodically using a script that says "forget anything older than one month") -- is there a better way? The repository is not standalone, it receives pushes from hundreds of clients, and gets pulled from a couple of clients. All clients are "in sync", in that will be pulling every hour (vs a "time window" of one month). At this stage, and with careful management (ie: custom gc scripts) git makes for an excellent async log/report transfer tool. We specially appreciate that it has "deep buffer". cheers, m -- martin.langhoff@gmail.com - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first ~ http://docs.moodle.org/en/User:Martin_Langhoff ``` ## Duy Nguyen, 2014-03-07 00:47 Subject: Re: gc/repack has no option to lose grafted parents Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CACsJy8BrnKPu%3DUf5Qy1KoccorBJ43yo%2BR9P3PyVAeNU9FuCy6Q%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: ``` On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 6:36 AM, Martin Langhoff wrote: > On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Given that we in general frown upon long-term use of grafts (or >> "replace" for that matter), I am not sure if we want to go in that >> direction. >> >> Just a knee-jerk reaction, though. > > Fair enough. > > If I state my actual goals -- discarding old, uninteresting history, > in a "rolling" fashion? (periodically using a script that says "forget > anything older than one month") -- is there a better way? Convert it to a shallow repository? Either you clone it and do "fetch --depth=XXX && prune", or you manipulate $GIT_DIR/shallow directly then prune (no worse than editing grafts, I think). -- Duy ```