Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 10:45:39AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Exactly. The two features (bitmaps and .keep) are not compatible with
each other, so you have to prioritize one. If you are using static .keep
files, you might want them to continue being
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 10:13:47AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Or the flip side: if the user wants to use .keep, we should drop
bitmaps. My point is that we do not know which way the user wants to
go, so we should not tie the options together.
Hmph. I think the short of your later
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 10:13:47AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Or the flip side: if the user wants to use .keep, we should drop
bitmaps. My point is that we do not know which way the user wants to
go, so we should not tie the options together.
Hmph. I
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 11:51:06AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Yes. Do you need a re-roll from me? I think the last version I sent +
the squash to tie the default to bitmap-writing makes the most sense.
I have 9e20b390 (repack: add `repack.packKeptObjects` config var,
2014-02-26); I do
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 10:04:44AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
I wonder if it makes sense to link it with pack.writebitmaps more
tightly, without even exposing it as a seemingly orthogonal knob
that can be tweaked, though.
I think that is because I do not fully understand the , because ...
On Feb 28, 2014, at 1:55 AM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 10:04:44AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
I wonder if it makes sense to link it with pack.writebitmaps more
tightly, without even exposing it as a seemingly orthogonal knob
that can be tweaked, though.
I
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 10:04:44AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
I wonder if it makes sense to link it with pack.writebitmaps more
tightly, without even exposing it as a seemingly orthogonal knob
that can be tweaked, though.
I think that is because I do not
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 10:45:39AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Exactly. The two features (bitmaps and .keep) are not compatible with
each other, so you have to prioritize one. If you are using static .keep
files, you might want them to continue being respected at the expense of
using
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 10:09:08AM -0700, Nasser Grainawi wrote:
Exactly. The two features (bitmaps and .keep) are not compatible with
each other, so you have to prioritize one. If you are using static .keep
files, you might want them to continue being respected at the expense of
using
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:30:36PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
pack-kept-objects then?
Hmm. That does address my point above, but somehow the word kept feels
awkward to me. I'm ambivalent between the two.
That word does make my backside somewhat itchy ;-)
Would it help to take a
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
Of all of them, I think --pack-kept-objects is probably the best. And I
think we are hitting diminishing returns in thinking too much more on
the name. :)
True enough.
I wonder if it makes sense to link it with pack.writebitmaps more
tightly, without even
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:10:49AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
The best name I could come up with is --pack-keep-objects, since that
is literally what it is doing. I'm not wild about the name because it is
easy to read keep as a verb (and pack as a noun). I think it's OK,
but suggestions
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:10:49AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
The best name I could come up with is --pack-keep-objects, since that
is literally what it is doing. I'm not wild about the name because it is
easy to read keep as a verb (and pack as a noun).
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 01:21:43AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
The git-repack command always passes `--honor-pack-keep`
to pack-objects. This has traditionally been a good thing,
as we do not want to duplicate those objects in a new pack,
and we are not
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
Sorry, this one slipped through the cracks. Here's a re-roll addressing
your comments.
...
- In the context of pack-objects, the name --honor-pack-keep
makes sense; it is understood that pack-objects will _not_ remove
kept packfile, so honoring can
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
The git-repack command always passes `--honor-pack-keep`
to pack-objects. This has traditionally been a good thing,
as we do not want to duplicate those objects in a new pack,
and we are not going to delete the old pack.
...
Note that this option just
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 06:44:43PM -0800, Siddharth Agarwal wrote:
On 01/23/2014 06:28 PM, Jeff King wrote:
I think your understanding is accurate here. So we want repack to
respect keep files for deletion, but we _not_ necessarily want
pack-objects to avoid packing an object just because
17 matches
Mail list logo
