Junio C Hamano gitster at pobox.com writes:
Instead of adding a boolean --break-ok that is hidden, why not
adding an exposed boolean --daemonize, and let auto-gc run in the
background? With the recent do not let more than one gc run at the
same time, that should give a lot more pleasant end
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 7:36 PM, chris j...@hotmail.com wrote:
Junio C Hamano gitster at pobox.com writes:
Instead of adding a boolean --break-ok that is hidden, why not
adding an exposed boolean --daemonize, and let auto-gc run in the
background? With the recent do not let more than one gc
Duy Nguyen pclouds at gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 7:36 PM, chris jugg at hotmail.com wrote:
Junio C Hamano gitster at pobox.com writes:
Instead of adding a boolean --break-ok that is hidden, why not
adding an exposed boolean --daemonize, and let auto-gc run in the
background?
Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy pclo...@gmail.com writes:
Housekeeping jobs like auto gc generally should not get in the way.
Users who are pushing may not want to wait until auto gc is done on
the server. Give a hint for those users that it's safe now to break
git push and stop waiting.
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy pclo...@gmail.com writes:
Housekeeping jobs like auto gc generally should not get in the way.
Users who are pushing may not want to wait until auto gc is done on
the server. Give a hint for those users that it's safe now to break
Housekeeping jobs like auto gc generally should not get in the way.
Users who are pushing may not want to wait until auto gc is done on
the server. Give a hint for those users that it's safe now to break
git push and stop waiting.
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy pclo...@gmail.com
---
This
6 matches
Mail list logo
