Daniel Farina wrote:
> Secondly, 'git gc' has the '--aggressive' option. This used to do
> something really misleading, but I'm pretty sure it's fixed 'now',
> although I couldn't point you to an exact version. This makes life
> easy: just run 'git gc --aggressive' once in a long while. Given the
> current data it seems that the pack should be about 100M
> afterwards.
Wow, that's impressive! How long does a "git gc --agressive" run take?
> Thirdly, I found a lot of garbage. There was no garbage when I used
> wget to fetch a copy of repo (and over 600000 objects) but then when I
> pushed to a git clone git chose only to send something in the 300000
> object range. I suspect the difference is in the reflog or something,
> but I still can't explain why there was so much garbage that's not
> connected to branches or tags. Regardless, all the branches seem
> present and 'git fsck' says everything is okay. I'm trying to figure
> out where those extra objects are reachable from, but that's mostly
> for completeness -- everything seems to be working convincingly.
That could be because of the duplicated history we had there in
December, that I then fixed. I reset the branches to just before the
screwup, and then ran fromcvs to catch up with CVS HEAD again. That
duplicated history is probably still there, but nor reachable from any
branches or tags.
Should we run "git prune" to get rid of the garbage?
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com