1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/git/git.git synced 2024-11-15 05:33:04 +01:00
git/builtin/gc.c

366 lines
9 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

/*
* git gc builtin command
*
* Cleanup unreachable files and optimize the repository.
*
* Copyright (c) 2007 James Bowes
*
* Based on git-gc.sh, which is
*
* Copyright (c) 2006 Shawn O. Pearce
*/
#include "builtin.h"
#include "cache.h"
#include "parse-options.h"
#include "run-command.h"
#include "sigchain.h"
#include "argv-array.h"
#include "commit.h"
#define FAILED_RUN "failed to run %s"
static const char * const builtin_gc_usage[] = {
N_("git gc [options]"),
NULL
};
static int pack_refs = 1;
gc --aggressive: make --depth configurable When 1c192f3 (gc --aggressive: make it really aggressive - 2007-12-06) made --depth=250 the default value, it didn't really explain the reason behind, especially the pros and cons of --depth=250. An old mail from Linus below explains it at length. Long story short, --depth=250 is a disk saver and a performance killer. Not everybody agrees on that aggressiveness. Let the user configure it. From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] gc --aggressive: make it really aggressive Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 08:19:24 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.9999.0712060803430.13796@woody.linux-foundation.org> Gmane-URL: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gcc.devel/94637 On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Harvey Harrison wrote: > > 7:41:25elapsed 86%CPU Heh. And this is why you want to do it exactly *once*, and then just export the end result for others ;) > -r--r--r-- 1 hharrison hharrison 324094684 2007-12-06 07:26 pack-1d46...pack But yeah, especially if you allow longer delta chains, the end result can be much smaller (and what makes the one-time repack more expensive is the window size, not the delta chain - you could make the delta chains longer with no cost overhead at packing time) HOWEVER. The longer delta chains do make it potentially much more expensive to then use old history. So there's a trade-off. And quite frankly, a delta depth of 250 is likely going to cause overflows in the delta cache (which is only 256 entries in size *and* it's a hash, so it's going to start having hash conflicts long before hitting the 250 depth limit). So when I said "--depth=250 --window=250", I chose those numbers more as an example of extremely aggressive packing, and I'm not at all sure that the end result is necessarily wonderfully usable. It's going to save disk space (and network bandwidth - the delta's will be re-used for the network protocol too!), but there are definitely downsides too, and using long delta chains may simply not be worth it in practice. (And some of it might just want to have git tuning, ie if people think that long deltas are worth it, we could easily just expand on the delta hash, at the cost of some more memory used!) That said, the good news is that working with *new* history will not be affected negatively, and if you want to be _really_ sneaky, there are ways to say "create a pack that contains the history up to a version one year ago, and be very aggressive about those old versions that we still want to have around, but do a separate pack for newer stuff using less aggressive parameters" So this is something that can be tweaked, although we don't really have any really nice interfaces for stuff like that (ie the git delta cache size is hardcoded in the sources and cannot be set in the config file, and the "pack old history more aggressively" involves some manual scripting and knowing how "git pack-objects" works rather than any nice simple command line switch). So the thing to take away from this is: - git is certainly flexible as hell - .. but to get the full power you may need to tweak things - .. happily you really only need to have one person to do the tweaking, and the tweaked end results will be available to others that do not need to know/care. And whether the difference between 320MB and 500MB is worth any really involved tweaking (considering the potential downsides), I really don't know. Only testing will tell. Linus Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-03-16 14:35:03 +01:00
static int aggressive_depth = 250;
static int aggressive_window = 250;
static int gc_auto_threshold = 6700;
static int gc_auto_pack_limit = 50;
static int detach_auto = 1;
static const char *prune_expire = "2.weeks.ago";
static struct argv_array pack_refs_cmd = ARGV_ARRAY_INIT;
static struct argv_array reflog = ARGV_ARRAY_INIT;
static struct argv_array repack = ARGV_ARRAY_INIT;
static struct argv_array prune = ARGV_ARRAY_INIT;
static struct argv_array rerere = ARGV_ARRAY_INIT;
static char *pidfile;
static void remove_pidfile(void)
{
if (pidfile)
unlink(pidfile);
}
static void remove_pidfile_on_signal(int signo)
{
remove_pidfile();
sigchain_pop(signo);
raise(signo);
}
static int gc_config(const char *var, const char *value, void *cb)
{
if (!strcmp(var, "gc.packrefs")) {
if (value && !strcmp(value, "notbare"))
pack_refs = -1;
else
pack_refs = git_config_bool(var, value);
return 0;
}
if (!strcmp(var, "gc.aggressivewindow")) {
aggressive_window = git_config_int(var, value);
return 0;
}
gc --aggressive: make --depth configurable When 1c192f3 (gc --aggressive: make it really aggressive - 2007-12-06) made --depth=250 the default value, it didn't really explain the reason behind, especially the pros and cons of --depth=250. An old mail from Linus below explains it at length. Long story short, --depth=250 is a disk saver and a performance killer. Not everybody agrees on that aggressiveness. Let the user configure it. From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] gc --aggressive: make it really aggressive Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 08:19:24 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.9999.0712060803430.13796@woody.linux-foundation.org> Gmane-URL: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gcc.devel/94637 On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Harvey Harrison wrote: > > 7:41:25elapsed 86%CPU Heh. And this is why you want to do it exactly *once*, and then just export the end result for others ;) > -r--r--r-- 1 hharrison hharrison 324094684 2007-12-06 07:26 pack-1d46...pack But yeah, especially if you allow longer delta chains, the end result can be much smaller (and what makes the one-time repack more expensive is the window size, not the delta chain - you could make the delta chains longer with no cost overhead at packing time) HOWEVER. The longer delta chains do make it potentially much more expensive to then use old history. So there's a trade-off. And quite frankly, a delta depth of 250 is likely going to cause overflows in the delta cache (which is only 256 entries in size *and* it's a hash, so it's going to start having hash conflicts long before hitting the 250 depth limit). So when I said "--depth=250 --window=250", I chose those numbers more as an example of extremely aggressive packing, and I'm not at all sure that the end result is necessarily wonderfully usable. It's going to save disk space (and network bandwidth - the delta's will be re-used for the network protocol too!), but there are definitely downsides too, and using long delta chains may simply not be worth it in practice. (And some of it might just want to have git tuning, ie if people think that long deltas are worth it, we could easily just expand on the delta hash, at the cost of some more memory used!) That said, the good news is that working with *new* history will not be affected negatively, and if you want to be _really_ sneaky, there are ways to say "create a pack that contains the history up to a version one year ago, and be very aggressive about those old versions that we still want to have around, but do a separate pack for newer stuff using less aggressive parameters" So this is something that can be tweaked, although we don't really have any really nice interfaces for stuff like that (ie the git delta cache size is hardcoded in the sources and cannot be set in the config file, and the "pack old history more aggressively" involves some manual scripting and knowing how "git pack-objects" works rather than any nice simple command line switch). So the thing to take away from this is: - git is certainly flexible as hell - .. but to get the full power you may need to tweak things - .. happily you really only need to have one person to do the tweaking, and the tweaked end results will be available to others that do not need to know/care. And whether the difference between 320MB and 500MB is worth any really involved tweaking (considering the potential downsides), I really don't know. Only testing will tell. Linus Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-03-16 14:35:03 +01:00
if (!strcmp(var, "gc.aggressivedepth")) {
aggressive_depth = git_config_int(var, value);
return 0;
}
if (!strcmp(var, "gc.auto")) {
gc_auto_threshold = git_config_int(var, value);
return 0;
}
if (!strcmp(var, "gc.autopacklimit")) {
gc_auto_pack_limit = git_config_int(var, value);
return 0;
}
if (!strcmp(var, "gc.autodetach")) {
detach_auto = git_config_bool(var, value);
return 0;
}
gc: call "prune --expire 2.weeks.ago" by default 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>
2008-03-12 21:55:47 +01:00
if (!strcmp(var, "gc.pruneexpire")) {
if (value && strcmp(value, "now")) {
gc: call "prune --expire 2.weeks.ago" by default 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>
2008-03-12 21:55:47 +01:00
unsigned long now = approxidate("now");
if (approxidate(value) >= now)
return error(_("Invalid %s: '%s'"), var, value);
gc: call "prune --expire 2.weeks.ago" by default 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>
2008-03-12 21:55:47 +01:00
}
return git_config_string(&prune_expire, var, value);
gc: call "prune --expire 2.weeks.ago" by default 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>
2008-03-12 21:55:47 +01:00
}
return git_default_config(var, value, cb);
}
static int too_many_loose_objects(void)
{
/*
* Quickly check if a "gc" is needed, by estimating how
* many loose objects there are. Because SHA-1 is evenly
* distributed, we can check only one and get a reasonable
* estimate.
*/
char path[PATH_MAX];
const char *objdir = get_object_directory();
DIR *dir;
struct dirent *ent;
int auto_threshold;
int num_loose = 0;
int needed = 0;
if (gc_auto_threshold <= 0)
return 0;
if (sizeof(path) <= snprintf(path, sizeof(path), "%s/17", objdir)) {
warning(_("insanely long object directory %.*s"), 50, objdir);
return 0;
}
dir = opendir(path);
if (!dir)
return 0;
auto_threshold = (gc_auto_threshold + 255) / 256;
while ((ent = readdir(dir)) != NULL) {
if (strspn(ent->d_name, "0123456789abcdef") != 38 ||
ent->d_name[38] != '\0')
continue;
if (++num_loose > auto_threshold) {
needed = 1;
break;
}
}
closedir(dir);
return needed;
}
static int too_many_packs(void)
{
struct packed_git *p;
int cnt;
if (gc_auto_pack_limit <= 0)
return 0;
prepare_packed_git();
for (cnt = 0, p = packed_git; p; p = p->next) {
if (!p->pack_local)
continue;
if (p->pack_keep)
continue;
/*
* Perhaps check the size of the pack and count only
* very small ones here?
*/
cnt++;
}
return gc_auto_pack_limit <= cnt;
}
static void add_repack_all_option(void)
{
if (prune_expire && !strcmp(prune_expire, "now"))
argv_array_push(&repack, "-a");
else {
argv_array_push(&repack, "-A");
if (prune_expire)
argv_array_pushf(&repack, "--unpack-unreachable=%s", prune_expire);
}
}
static int need_to_gc(void)
{
/*
* Setting gc.auto to 0 or negative can disable the
* automatic gc.
*/
if (gc_auto_threshold <= 0)
return 0;
/*
* If there are too many loose objects, but not too many
* packs, we run "repack -d -l". If there are too many packs,
* we run "repack -A -d -l". Otherwise we tell the caller
* there is no need.
*/
if (too_many_packs())
add_repack_all_option();
else if (!too_many_loose_objects())
return 0;
if (run_hook_le(NULL, "pre-auto-gc", NULL))
return 0;
return 1;
}
/* return NULL on success, else hostname running the gc */
static const char *lock_repo_for_gc(int force, pid_t* ret_pid)
{
static struct lock_file lock;
char my_host[128];
struct strbuf sb = STRBUF_INIT;
struct stat st;
uintmax_t pid;
FILE *fp;
int fd;
if (pidfile)
/* already locked */
return NULL;
if (gethostname(my_host, sizeof(my_host)))
strcpy(my_host, "unknown");
fd = hold_lock_file_for_update(&lock, git_path("gc.pid"),
LOCK_DIE_ON_ERROR);
if (!force) {
static char locking_host[128];
int should_exit;
fp = fopen(git_path("gc.pid"), "r");
memset(locking_host, 0, sizeof(locking_host));
should_exit =
fp != NULL &&
!fstat(fileno(fp), &st) &&
/*
* 12 hour limit is very generous as gc should
* never take that long. On the other hand we
* don't really need a strict limit here,
* running gc --auto one day late is not a big
* problem. --force can be used in manual gc
* after the user verifies that no gc is
* running.
*/
time(NULL) - st.st_mtime <= 12 * 3600 &&
fscanf(fp, "%"PRIuMAX" %127c", &pid, locking_host) == 2 &&
/* be gentle to concurrent "gc" on remote hosts */
(strcmp(locking_host, my_host) || !kill(pid, 0) || errno == EPERM);
if (fp != NULL)
fclose(fp);
if (should_exit) {
if (fd >= 0)
rollback_lock_file(&lock);
*ret_pid = pid;
return locking_host;
}
}
strbuf_addf(&sb, "%"PRIuMAX" %s",
(uintmax_t) getpid(), my_host);
write_in_full(fd, sb.buf, sb.len);
strbuf_release(&sb);
commit_lock_file(&lock);
pidfile = git_pathdup("gc.pid");
sigchain_push_common(remove_pidfile_on_signal);
atexit(remove_pidfile);
return NULL;
}
int cmd_gc(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
{
int aggressive = 0;
int auto_gc = 0;
int quiet = 0;
int force = 0;
const char *name;
pid_t pid;
struct option builtin_gc_options[] = {
OPT__QUIET(&quiet, N_("suppress progress reporting")),
{ OPTION_STRING, 0, "prune", &prune_expire, N_("date"),
N_("prune unreferenced objects"),
PARSE_OPT_OPTARG, NULL, (intptr_t)prune_expire },
OPT_BOOL(0, "aggressive", &aggressive, N_("be more thorough (increased runtime)")),
OPT_BOOL(0, "auto", &auto_gc, N_("enable auto-gc mode")),
OPT_BOOL(0, "force", &force, N_("force running gc even if there may be another gc running")),
OPT_END()
};
if (argc == 2 && !strcmp(argv[1], "-h"))
usage_with_options(builtin_gc_usage, builtin_gc_options);
argv_array_pushl(&pack_refs_cmd, "pack-refs", "--all", "--prune", NULL);
argv_array_pushl(&reflog, "reflog", "expire", "--all", NULL);
argv_array_pushl(&repack, "repack", "-d", "-l", NULL);
argv_array_pushl(&prune, "prune", "--expire", NULL );
argv_array_pushl(&rerere, "rerere", "gc", NULL);
git_config(gc_config, NULL);
if (pack_refs < 0)
pack_refs = !is_bare_repository();
argc = parse_options(argc, argv, prefix, builtin_gc_options,
builtin_gc_usage, 0);
if (argc > 0)
usage_with_options(builtin_gc_usage, builtin_gc_options);
if (aggressive) {
argv_array_push(&repack, "-f");
gc --aggressive: make --depth configurable When 1c192f3 (gc --aggressive: make it really aggressive - 2007-12-06) made --depth=250 the default value, it didn't really explain the reason behind, especially the pros and cons of --depth=250. An old mail from Linus below explains it at length. Long story short, --depth=250 is a disk saver and a performance killer. Not everybody agrees on that aggressiveness. Let the user configure it. From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] gc --aggressive: make it really aggressive Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 08:19:24 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.9999.0712060803430.13796@woody.linux-foundation.org> Gmane-URL: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gcc.devel/94637 On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Harvey Harrison wrote: > > 7:41:25elapsed 86%CPU Heh. And this is why you want to do it exactly *once*, and then just export the end result for others ;) > -r--r--r-- 1 hharrison hharrison 324094684 2007-12-06 07:26 pack-1d46...pack But yeah, especially if you allow longer delta chains, the end result can be much smaller (and what makes the one-time repack more expensive is the window size, not the delta chain - you could make the delta chains longer with no cost overhead at packing time) HOWEVER. The longer delta chains do make it potentially much more expensive to then use old history. So there's a trade-off. And quite frankly, a delta depth of 250 is likely going to cause overflows in the delta cache (which is only 256 entries in size *and* it's a hash, so it's going to start having hash conflicts long before hitting the 250 depth limit). So when I said "--depth=250 --window=250", I chose those numbers more as an example of extremely aggressive packing, and I'm not at all sure that the end result is necessarily wonderfully usable. It's going to save disk space (and network bandwidth - the delta's will be re-used for the network protocol too!), but there are definitely downsides too, and using long delta chains may simply not be worth it in practice. (And some of it might just want to have git tuning, ie if people think that long deltas are worth it, we could easily just expand on the delta hash, at the cost of some more memory used!) That said, the good news is that working with *new* history will not be affected negatively, and if you want to be _really_ sneaky, there are ways to say "create a pack that contains the history up to a version one year ago, and be very aggressive about those old versions that we still want to have around, but do a separate pack for newer stuff using less aggressive parameters" So this is something that can be tweaked, although we don't really have any really nice interfaces for stuff like that (ie the git delta cache size is hardcoded in the sources and cannot be set in the config file, and the "pack old history more aggressively" involves some manual scripting and knowing how "git pack-objects" works rather than any nice simple command line switch). So the thing to take away from this is: - git is certainly flexible as hell - .. but to get the full power you may need to tweak things - .. happily you really only need to have one person to do the tweaking, and the tweaked end results will be available to others that do not need to know/care. And whether the difference between 320MB and 500MB is worth any really involved tweaking (considering the potential downsides), I really don't know. Only testing will tell. Linus Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-03-16 14:35:03 +01:00
if (aggressive_depth > 0)
argv_array_pushf(&repack, "--depth=%d", aggressive_depth);
if (aggressive_window > 0)
argv_array_pushf(&repack, "--window=%d", aggressive_window);
}
if (quiet)
argv_array_push(&repack, "-q");
if (auto_gc) {
/*
* Auto-gc should be least intrusive as possible.
*/
if (!need_to_gc())
return 0;
if (!quiet) {
if (detach_auto)
fprintf(stderr, _("Auto packing the repository in background for optimum performance.\n"));
else
fprintf(stderr, _("Auto packing the repository for optimum performance.\n"));
fprintf(stderr, _("See \"git help gc\" for manual housekeeping.\n"));
}
if (detach_auto)
/*
* failure to daemonize is ok, we'll continue
* in foreground
*/
daemonize();
} else
add_repack_all_option();
name = lock_repo_for_gc(force, &pid);
if (name) {
if (auto_gc)
return 0; /* be quiet on --auto */
die(_("gc is already running on machine '%s' pid %"PRIuMAX" (use --force if not)"),
name, (uintmax_t)pid);
}
if (pack_refs && run_command_v_opt(pack_refs_cmd.argv, RUN_GIT_CMD))
return error(FAILED_RUN, pack_refs_cmd.argv[0]);
if (run_command_v_opt(reflog.argv, RUN_GIT_CMD))
return error(FAILED_RUN, reflog.argv[0]);
if (run_command_v_opt(repack.argv, RUN_GIT_CMD))
return error(FAILED_RUN, repack.argv[0]);
if (prune_expire) {
argv_array_push(&prune, prune_expire);
if (quiet)
argv_array_push(&prune, "--no-progress");
if (run_command_v_opt(prune.argv, RUN_GIT_CMD))
return error(FAILED_RUN, prune.argv[0]);
}
if (run_command_v_opt(rerere.argv, RUN_GIT_CMD))
return error(FAILED_RUN, rerere.argv[0]);
if (auto_gc && too_many_loose_objects())
warning(_("There are too many unreachable loose objects; "
"run 'git prune' to remove them."));
return 0;
}