Re: [PATCH v6 20/21] gc: automatically write commit-graph files
- Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2018 00:24:14 +0200
- From: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 20/21] gc: automatically write commit-graph files
> The commit-graph file is a very helpful feature for speeding up git
> operations. In order to make it more useful, make it possible to
> write the commit-graph file during standard garbage collection
> Add a 'gc.commitGraph' config setting that triggers writing a
> commit-graph file after any non-trivial 'git gc' command. Defaults to
> false while the commit-graph feature matures. We specifically do not
> want to have this on by default until the commit-graph feature is fully
> integrated with history-modifying features like shallow clones.
So I played around with an earlier version of this patch series a
while ago... and as I looked into my gitconfig today I was surprised
to have both 'core.commitGraph' and 'gc.commitGraph' config variables
set. When I looked into it I came across this email from Ævar:
> Other than the question if 'gc.commitGraph' and 'core.commitGraph'
> should be independent config variables, and the exact wording of the
> git-gc docs, it looks good to me.
Sans doc errors you pointed out in other places (you need to set
core.commitGraph so it's read at all), I think it's very useful to have
these split up. It's simliar to pack.useBitmaps & pack.writeBitmaps.
I think the comparison with pack bitmaps makes a lot of sense and I
have to say that I really like those 'useBitmaps' and 'writeBitmaps'
variable names, because it's clear right away which one is which,
without consulting the documentation. I think having 'useCommitGraph'
and 'writeCommitGraph' variables would be a lot better than the same
variable name in two different sections, and I'm sure that then I
wouldn't have been caught off guard.
Yeah, I know, my timing sucks, with 'core.commitGraph' already out
there in the -rc releases... sorry.