Re: We should add a "git gc --auto" after "git clone" due to commit graph
- Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 16:01:40 +0200
- From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: We should add a "git gc --auto" after "git clone" due to commit graph
On Wed, Oct 03 2018, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> 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'...
"git gc" is really "git gc-or-create-indexes" these days.
>> 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 ...'
Then when adding something like the commit graph we'd need to patch both
git-clone and git-gc, it's much more straightforward to make
need_to_gc() more granular.
>> 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
>> 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.