Web lists-archives.com

Re: We should add a "git gc --auto" after "git clone" due to commit graph




On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 03:23:57PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> Don't have time to patch this now, but thought I'd send a note / RFC
> about this.
> 
> Now that we have the commit graph it's nice to be able to set
> e.g. core.commitGraph=true & gc.writeCommitGraph=true in ~/.gitconfig or
> /etc/gitconfig to apply them to all repos.
> 
> But when I clone e.g. linux.git stuff like 'tag --contains' will be slow
> until whenever my first "gc" kicks in, which may be quite some time if
> I'm just using it passively.
> 
> So we should make "git gc --auto" be run on clone,

There is no garbage after 'git clone'...

> and change the
> need_to_gc() / cmd_gc() behavior so that we detect that the
> gc.writeCommitGraph=true setting is on, but we have no commit graph, and
> then just generate that without doing a full repack.

Or just teach 'git clone' to run 'git commit-graph write ...'

> As an aside such more granular "gc" would be nice for e.g. pack-refs
> too. It's possible for us to just have one pack, but to have 100k loose
> refs.
> 
> It might also be good to have some gc.autoDetachOnClone option and have
> it false by default, so we don't have a race condition where "clone
> linux && git -C linux tag --contains" is slow because the graph hasn't
> been generated yet, and generating the graph initially doesn't take that
> long compared to the time to clone a large repo (and on a small one it
> won't matter either way).
> 
> I was going to say "also for midx", but of course after clone we have
> just one pack, so I can't imagine us needing this. But I can see us
> having other such optional side-indexes in the future generated by gc,
> and they'd also benefit from this.
> 
> #leftoverbits