[MERGE] * Obsolete packs are now cleaned up by pack and autopack operations.

John Arbash Meinel john at arbash-meinel.com
Mon Oct 29 21:29:08 GMT 2007


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Robert Collins wrote:

...

>> Why not just delete them in place, rather than renaming and then deleting them?
>
> We don't.

Well the question wasn't whether we do. But why not just delete them.


>
>> Unless you are deleting them before renaming the new ones into place.
>
> We do.

BB:approve


Just to be clear, this means that revision 10 will have 2x the storage space
(because it repacks for the first time.) But all future revisions will have
something < 2x. Because at most you are repacking the whole repository, but
most of the time you will repack much less than that.

John
=:->

>
>> Which
>> means you will carry around 1 copy of the last set of packs, but older ones
>> will be removed. That is probably my favorite, since if they have been sitting
>> in there, they are unlikely to ever be referenced. And it would still let us
>> have the redirect transport which just re-issues a request from "packs/foo" to
>> "obsolete_packs/foo" on a NoSuchFile error. (Which is a simple way of working
>> around the code doesn't retry bug.)
>
> Exactly.
>
> -Rob
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHJlCjJdeBCYSNAAMRAumFAKDQJC3rM1eJlbf/54M9IXJ7AYd+SQCgnfLb
yOtA6fsbwbMXBBZEv3SaPcM=
=Txwq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the bazaar mailing list