From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] gc: call "prune --expire 2.weeks.ago" Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 19:13:53 -0700 Message-ID: <7vskywadum.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Mar 12 03:14:52 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JZGUR-0001Je-It for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 03:14:48 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751384AbYCLCOG (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:14:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751351AbYCLCOF (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:14:05 -0400 Received: from a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([207.106.133.19]:44737 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751357AbYCLCOC (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:14:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 821553399; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:14:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF6BE3398; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:13:56 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Tue, 11 Mar 2008 21:58:20 +0100 (CET)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Schindelin writes: > If "--prune" is passed to gc, it still just calls "git prune". > Otherwise, "prune --expire 2.weeks.ago" is called, where the grace > period is overrideable by the config variable gc.pruneExpire. "What it does." > While adding a test to t5304-prune.sh (since it really tests the > implicit call to "prune"), the original test for "prune --expire" > is moved there from t1410-reflog.sh, where it did not belong. "What the fallouts from this change were." > Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin Can we also have "why this is a good idea", "what problem this solves"?