Re: git svn clone/fetch hits issues with gc --auto

From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
To: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>
Cc: Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@gmail.com>,
	Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
	e@80x24.org, Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: git svn clone/fetch hits issues with gc --auto
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 09:51:52 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181010165152.GA180779@aiede.svl.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <875zyaf2f1.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com>

Hi,

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:

> I'm just saying it's hard in this case to remove one piece without the
> whole Jenga tower collapsing, and it's probably a good idea in some of
> these cases to pester the user about what he wants, but probably not via
> gc --auto emitting the same warning every time, e.g. in one of these
> threads I suggested maybe "git status" should emit this.

I have to say, I don't have a lot of sympathy for this.

I've been running with the patches I sent before for a while now, and
the behavior that they create is great.  I think we can make further
refinements on top.  To put it another way, I haven't actually
experienced any bad knock-on effects, and I think other feature
requests can be addressed separately.

I do have sympathy for some wishes for changes to "git gc --auto"
behavior (I think it should be synchronous regardless of config and
the asynchrony should move to being requested explicitly through a
command line option by the callers within Git) but I don't understand
why this holds up a change that IMHO is wholly positive for users.

To put it another way, I am getting the feeling that the objections to
that series were theoretical, while the practical benefits of the
patch are pretty immediate and real.  I'm happy to help anyone who
wants to polish it but time has shown no one is working on that, so...

Thanks,
Jonathan