Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes:
> Yeah, that's me :) I have some WIP gc cleanup, but want to sit on it a
> bit before I submit it to think about the best way to do things.
>
> So in the meantime I was sending out a few WIP bits that I expected
> could be reviewed stand-alone.
I dunno. Unless
On Wed, Oct 10 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Brandon Casey writes:
>
>> ... Again, I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm not
>> sure this change actually improves the code.
>
> Yeah, in the context of the current caller, this is a safe change
> that does not break anybody and reduces the
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 4:38 PM Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> Brandon Casey writes:
>
> > ... Again, I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm not
> > sure this change actually improves the code.
>
> Yeah, in the context of the current caller, this is a safe change
> that does not break anybody and
Brandon Casey writes:
> ... Again, I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm not
> sure this change actually improves the code.
Yeah, in the context of the current caller, this is a safe change
that does not break anybody and reduces the number of instructions
executed in this codepath. A
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 12:32 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
wrote:
>
> Checking gc_auto_threshold in too_many_loose_objects() was added in
> 17815501a8 ("git-gc --auto: run "repack -A -d -l" as necessary.",
> 2007-09-17) when need_to_gc() itself was also reliant on
> gc_auto_pack_limit before its
Checking gc_auto_threshold in too_many_loose_objects() was added in
17815501a8 ("git-gc --auto: run "repack -A -d -l" as necessary.",
2007-09-17) when need_to_gc() itself was also reliant on
gc_auto_pack_limit before its early return:
gc_auto_threshold <= 0 && gc_auto_pack_limit <= 0
When
6 matches
Mail list logo
