I'm trying to imagine when you'd want to run git-repack without the -d
option, or without running git-prune-packed afterwards.
(Isn't the idea behind packs to save space?)
I'll leave changing the default to wiser heads, but this trivial patch
will at least allow the normal operations to be performed with one
command.
Oh, and is the failure to support getopt-style concatenated
single-letter options (git-repack -dp) a deliberate design feature
of git, or just laziness?
(Legalese: Patch placed in the public domain; copyright abandoned.)
diff --git a/Documentation/git-repack.txt b/Documentation/git-repack.txt
index 9060fe8..1b1f50d 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-repack.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-repack.txt
@@ -47,6 +47,10 @@ OPTIONS
Do not update the server information with
`git update-server-info`.
+-p::
+ After packing, run gitlink:git-prune-packed[1] to delete
+ redundant unpacked objects.
+
Author
------
Written by Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>diff --git a/git-repack.sh b/git-repack.sh
index 1fafb6e..361c7e9 100755
--- a/git-repack.sh
+++ b/git-repack.sh
@@ -3,10 +3,10 @@
# Copyright (c) 2005 Linus Torvalds
#
-USAGE='[-a] [-d] [-l] [-n]'
+USAGE='[-a] [-d] [-l] [-n] [-p]'
. git-sh-setup
-no_update_info= all_into_one= remove_redundant= local=
+no_update_info= all_into_one= remove_redundant= local= prune=
while case "$#" in 0) break ;; esac
do
case "$1" in
@@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ do
-a) all_into_one=t ;;
-d) remove_redundant=t ;;
-l) local=t ;;
+ -p) prune=t ;;
*) usage ;;
esac
shift
@@ -76,6 +77,10 @@ then
fi
fi
+case "$prune" in
+t) git-prune-packed ;;
+esac
+
case "$no_update_info" in
t) : ;;
*) git-update-server-info ;;
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, linux@horizon.com wrote:
I'm trying to imagine when you'd want to run git-repack without the -d
option, or without running git-prune-packed afterwards.
(Isn't the idea behind packs to save space?)
Normally you'd always run git-prune-packed.
The reason it doesn't do that is simply being anally careful, and because
conceptually the pruning phase is totally independent.
For example, in an environment that mirrors out git repositories by rsync,
it can make sense to wait with pruning until the mirror cycle has
finished, so that all mirrors always have all the objects.
(I don't do it for the kernel, because (a) I'm a lazy bastard, (b) I'm so
confused that I sometimes forget my own name, much less to prune things a
day after I've repacked them and (c) I don't care that much about rsync
anyway, since you can't avoid some of the _other_ races).
As to whether you'd normally run "-d" - usually you'd run it whenever you
pair it up with "-a". When you do an incremental re-pack, "-d" won't do
anything anyway.
Again, it might make sense to not delete the old packs when repacking
everything in a rsync'ing environment - or even in a shared repository,
where removing a pack-file could race with somebody else working on it.
Basically, the default ends up being to never remove any objects at all,
simply because that's the _safe_ thing to do.
In practice, I personally always do
git repack -a -d
git prune-packed
together, because the full repack isn't _that_ expensive for me (I tend to
have lots of cpu power), and because I can't be bothered to worry too much
about rsync and there are never any other users working on my git trees.
Linus
linux@horizon.com writes:
(Legalese: Patch placed in the public domain; copyright abandoned.)
The rest of the patch looks good, but I'd rather prefer a patch
with a proper sign-off, strongly prefereable with a real name so
that we can attach blame on later when another SCO happens ;-).