The only reason we did not call "prune" in git-gc was that it is an
inherently dangerous operation: if there is a commit going on, you will
prune loose objects that were just created, and are, in fact, needed by the
commit object just about to be created.
Since it is dangerous, we told users so. That led to many users not even
daring to run it when it was actually safe. Besides, they are users, and
should not have to remember such details as when to call git-gc with
--prune, or to call git-prune directly.
Of course, the consequence was that "git gc --auto" gets triggered much
more often than we would like, since unreferenced loose objects (such as
left-overs from a rebase or a reset --hard) were never pruned.
Alas, git-prune recently learnt the option --expire <minimum-age>, which
makes it a much safer operation. This allows us to call prune from git-gc,
with a grace period of 2 weeks for the unreferenced loose objects (this
value was determined in a discussion on the git list as a safe one).
If you want to override this grace period, just set the config variable
gc.pruneExpire to a different value; an example would be
[gc]
pruneExpire = 6.months.ago
or even "never", if you feel really paranoid.
Note that this new behaviour makes "--prune" be a no-op.
While adding a test to t5304-prune.sh (since it really tests the implicit
call to "prune"), also the original test for "prune --expire" was moved
there from t1410-reflog.sh, where it did not belong.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Brandon Casey correctly points out that we repack with -A without --prune
and with -a with --prune, so it is not just unreferenced loose objects
that are pruned away when the option is given.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The previous message had too much of a "boy, you should
really turn off this annoying gc" flair to it. Instead,
let's make sure the user understands what is happening, that
they can run it themselves, and where to find more info.
Suggested by Brian Gernhardt.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Since "-a" is removed from the base repack command line,
we can simplify how we add additional options to this
command line when using --auto.
Signed-off-by: Brandon Casey <casey@nrlssc.navy.mil>
Signed-off-by: Lars Hjemli <hjemli@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
This makes use of repack's new "-A" option which does not drop packed
unreachable objects. This makes git-gc safe to call at any time,
particularly when a repository is referenced as an alternate by
another repository.
git-gc --prune will use the "-a" option to repack instead of "-A", so
that packed unreachable objects will be removed.
Signed-off-by: Brandon Casey <casey@nrlssc.navy.mil>
Signed-off-by: Lars Hjemli <hjemli@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
This teaches "git-gc --auto" to consolidate many packs into one
without losing unreachable objects in them by using "repack -A"
when there are too many packfiles that are not marked with *.keep
in the repository. gc.autopacklimit configuration can be used
to set the maximum number of packs a repository is allowed to
have before this mechanism kicks in.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
We used to build the command line to run repack outside of
need_to_gc() but with the next patch we would want to tweak the
command line depending on the nature of need.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Deciding to run "repack -d -l" when there are too many
loose objects would backfire when there are too many loose
objects that are unreachable, because repacking that way would
never improve the situation. Detect that case by checking the
number of loose objects again after automatic garbage collection
runs, and issue an warning to run "prune" manually.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This implements a new option "git gc --auto". When gc.auto is
set to a positive value, and the object database has accumulated
roughly that many number of loose objects, this runs a
lightweight version of "git gc". The primary difference from
the full "git gc" is that it does not pass "-a" option to "git
repack", which means we do not try to repack _everything_, but
only repack incrementally. We still do "git prune-packed". The
default threshold is arbitrarily set by yours truly to:
- not trigger it for fully unpacked git v0.99 history;
- do trigger it for fully unpacked git v1.0.0 history;
- not trigger it for incremental update to git v1.0.0 starting
from fully packed git v0.99 history.
This patch does not add invocation of the "auto repacking". It
is left to key Porcelain commands that could produce tons of
loose objects to add a call to "git gc --auto" after they are
done their work.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Make every builtin-*.c file #include "builtin.h".
Also takes care of some declaration/definition mismatches.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hagervall <hager@cs.umu.se>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
I've taught myself to use "git gc" instead of doing the repack explicitly,
but it doesn't actually do what I think it should do.
We've had packed refs for a long time now, and I think it just makes sense
to pack normal branches too. So I end up having to do
git pack-refs --all --prune
in order to get a nice git repo that doesn't have any unnecessary files.
So why not just do that in "git gc"? It's not as if there really is any
downside to packing branches, even if they end up changing later. Quite
often they don't, and even if they do, so what?
Also, make the default for refs packing just be an unambiguous "do it",
rather than "do it by default only for non-bare repositories". If you want
that behaviour, you can always just add a
[gc]
packrefs = notbare
in your ~/.gitconfig file, but I don't actually see why bare would be any
different (except for the broken reason that http-fetching used to be
totally broken, and not doing it just meant that it didn't even get
fixed in a timely manner!).
So here's a trivial patch to make "git gc" do a better job. Hmm?
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
This option causes 'git gc' to more aggressively optimize the
repository at the cost of taking much more wall clock and CPU time.
Today this option causes git-pack-objects to use --no-use-delta
option, and it allows the --window parameter to be set via the
gc.aggressiveWindow configuration parameter.
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
