Allow bypassing check for '.keep' file#4965
Conversation
|
Welcome to the libgit2 project, @Hackworks! I think that this seems like a reasonable change, but I'd like to iterate on it just a bit. Thanks for opening the PR! |
mechanicker
force-pushed
the
eliminate-check-for-keep-file
branch
2 times, most recently
from
c73f1c4 to
ae755b2
Compare
Thank you for encouraging and welcoming. I would love to contribute more. I come from a storage background and have spent time optimizing NFS stack for build and database workloads. |
mechanicker
force-pushed
the
eliminate-check-for-keep-file
branch
2 times, most recently
from
fc8f8c7 to
7ecb192
Compare
mechanicker
force-pushed
the
eliminate-check-for-keep-file
branch
from
1ae634e to
e367567
Compare
tiennou
left a comment
tiennou
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Okay, I'm bikeshedding names now 😉.
I'm unsold on whether we should keep the dead code around though, it feels weird to add an option for a check that is basically unused at the moment (and won't be until someone starts looking at git-gc or #2370).
mechanicker
force-pushed
the
eliminate-check-for-keep-file
branch
2 times, most recently
from
ed07cb7 to
d7b4bac
Compare
…ORE_PACK_KEEP_FILE_CHECK'
mechanicker
force-pushed
the
eliminate-check-for-keep-file
branch
from
d7b4bac to
004a339
Compare
|
I've no complaints with this. I'll be happy to merge it as soon as v0.28 is out the door. Right now I want to keep the master branch frozen to make sure that there are no complaints about v0.28.0-rc1 that need to be addressed. I expect that we should thaw out the master branch directly, it's been nearly a week with no reports of issues. |
|
Thanks, @Hackworks. Now that 0.28 is out, this is ready to go. |
3 participants
Retrieving commits involving looking for pack files. Any file operation for git repositories accessed over NAS has a huge performance impact.
For repositories which do not require retaining pack files, we can avoid a call to check for existence of '.keep' file and reduce the overall latency.