From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Pitre Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] reflog: ignore expire-unreachable for "HEAD" reflog Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 21:11:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <7vljcppycc.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vfx2xpyam.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <4BC6B5FF.6030406@viscovery.net> <7vochlkvtg.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <4BC6D30F.5020004@viscovery.net> <7v4ojclwyu.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <4BC70D75.70801@viscovery.net> <20100415163607.GA4279@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7vhbnck618.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <7v7ho8ibi3.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: Jeff King , Johannes Sixt , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Apr 16 03:13:28 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O2a7c-0004MZ-Ai for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 03:13:28 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756299Ab0DPBNH (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Apr 2010 21:13:07 -0400 Received: from relais.videotron.ca ([24.201.245.36]:48125 "EHLO relais.videotron.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756259Ab0DPBNG (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Apr 2010 21:13:06 -0400 Received: from xanadu.home ([66.130.28.92]) by VL-MR-MR001.ip.videotron.ca (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-8.01 (built Dec 16 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTP id <0L0Y002IM3AFECN0@VL-MR-MR001.ip.videotron.ca> for git@vger.kernel.org; Thu, 15 Apr 2010 21:11:03 -0400 (EDT) X-X-Sender: nico@xanadu.home In-reply-to: <7v7ho8ibi3.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Nicolas Pitre writes: > > > I'm a bit worried about this discussion. > > > > What's the point of having a reflog for unreachable stuff if it is to be > > pruned faster than stuff that is already reachable without any reflog? > > To keep recently failed experiments alive for some time (30 days), but not > overly long (90 days)? What is a "failed" experiment is still subjective. It might be possible to realize that part of it was not that bad after all and some pieces could be worth cherry-picking. Again, keeping reflogs 90 days for stuff that is _already_ reachable through existing refs is much less useful than keeping otherwise unreachable stuff 90 days. So I still don't see the point of this eagerness to prune deleted stuff faster. If you explicitly want to get rid of failed experiments then it should be done through an explicit prune command. Otherwise I'd argue that reflogs should take care not to lose track of unreachable stuff, even more so than stuff already reachable. Some people even tried to convince me that reflogs should never expire by default, and that the 3 month grace period was already too short. Nicolas