From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] Do not run git-pack-refs by default for now from git-gc Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 05:29:51 -0500 Message-ID: <20070213102951.GA14903@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <7v7ium1k7s.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vzm7iz8uv.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Feb 13 11:30:29 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HGuvc-0001Nz-P4 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:30:29 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751245AbXBMK3z (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Feb 2007 05:29:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751248AbXBMK3z (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Feb 2007 05:29:55 -0500 Received: from 66-23-211-5.clients.speedfactory.net ([66.23.211.5]:3721 "HELO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751245AbXBMK3y (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Feb 2007 05:29:54 -0500 Received: (qmail 11102 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2007 05:29:58 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by 66-23-211-5.clients.speedfactory.net with SMTP; 13 Feb 2007 05:29:58 -0500 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 13 Feb 2007 05:29:51 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 11:03:32AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > It seems to me that the reason are dumb transports, which are very likely > to run only from bare repositories. How about checking for a bare > repository explicitely, and only if it _is_ bare, check for gc.packrefs, > too? The way you have stated it, I think we will get a lot of "I set gc.packrefs, but it doesn't do anything!" complaints. I think a tri-state "yes/no/notbare" defaulting to "notbare" makes more sense. But maybe you meant the other way around in the first place. -Peff