Re: Why repository grows after "git gc"? / Purpose of *.keep files?

[A Large Angry SCM <gitzilla@xxxxxxxxx>]

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2008, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 14 May 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > > Of course, the more aggressively we prune, the more we end up having to 
> > > depend on the fact that a commit that is in a pack that is marked "keep" 
> > > must *always* have everything that leads to it in that pack or others also 
> > > marked "keep". We effectively have that already (because we've always 
> > > pruned away the commits early), but it's a thing to keep in mind whenever 
> > > we prune even more aggressively.
> > I wonder if this is a good thing.  Such a rule would effectively put 
> > restrictions on how objects like big blobs could be distributed amongst 
> > many .keep packs.  I just wish we're not painting ourselves in a corner.
>
> You can distribute big objects arbitrarily among many .keep packs, but 
> what you can *NOT* do (and which has _always_ been a bug to do) is to have 
> a *.keep pack that refers to objects that are not in a .keep pack!
>
> So keep<->keep you can do anything you want, and distribute objects any 
> way.
>
> But a keep pack must only refer to objects in itself or in other keep 
> packs.
>
> Because otherwise, if we ever hit an object in a keep pack, we'll stop 
> even looking further when we use --unpacked. And that has always been true 
> (admittedly only for "commit" objects, but those are the ones that most 
> commonly refer to other objects, so ..)

Sounds like git-fsck needs to start checking for this.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html