Re: [PATCH 2/2] reflog: ignore expire-unreachable for "HEAD" reflog

2 messages, 2 authors, 2016-06-15 · open the first message on its own page

Re: [PATCH 2/2] reflog: ignore expire-unreachable for "HEAD" reflog

From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:48:39

Nicolas Pitre [off-list ref] writes:
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.
Hmph, I honestly cannot care about this very much without knowing where
this is going, because the distinction between the two has been with us
practically forever, since the day one of "reflog expire".

Is there any constructive conclusion you are aiming for?  For example, is
a proposal to update the default value of both to 90 or 120 days coming?

FWIW, I have this in my primary repository.

    [gc]
            packrefs = no
            reflogexpire = '2005-01-01 00:00:00 +0000'
            reflogexpireunreachable = '2005-01-01 00:00:00 +0000'

Re: [PATCH 2/2] reflog: ignore expire-unreachable for "HEAD" reflog

From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:48:39

On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Nicolas Pitre [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
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.
Hmph, I honestly cannot care about this very much without knowing where
this is going, because the distinction between the two has been with us
practically forever, since the day one of "reflog expire".
Argh.  OK you can paint me confused. I was mixing up 
--expire-unreachable with --stale-fix.

Having my head screwed back on now, I do agree with Jeff when he says:

|I think another way of addressing the same problem would be to redefine
|"reachable" in this context as "reachable from any current ref".

Otherwise having a special exception for HEAD would effectively make 
those unreachable objects non prunable until the HEAD reflog entries are 
themselves expired.
Is there any constructive conclusion you are aiming for?  For example, is
a proposal to update the default value of both to 90 or 120 days coming?
I think that the default value for reflogexpireunreachable should be the 
value of reflogexpire, and not 30 days.  In my opinion, having a shorter 
expiration period for non reachable objects by default makes little 
sense.  Again, it is for the non reachable objects that the reflog is 
most useful.


Nicolas
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help