On 08/07/2013 05:48 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Matthieu Moy [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
seems overkill to me: why don't you just let cmd_repack call
update_server_info(0)?
My feeling exactly. I would rather see a patch that does not touch
pack-objects at all, and use run_command() interface to spawn it.
Once we do have to pack, the necessary processing cycle will dwarf
the fork/exec latency anyway, no?
Thanks for clarification. That was my initial idea as well,
to not touch the pack-objects logic.
However Duy send that patch (basically as is,
I just made it apply again),
and I guessed that I'd get to results
faster with an already existing approach.
I will reconsider and try to remove the additional logic from
pack-objects again (so it will not get touched) and move it to the
repack itself. It is just a way to understand, 'what needs to be done'.
Stefan