Re: [PATCH] gc: call "prune --expire 2.weeks.ago"

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 05:05:51PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

> > I'd really like it to be at least 2 weeks
> 
> Could you back that up with an explanation, as to why?

I assume it's "because I wouldn't want to lose work I had done within
the last two weeks." Yes, I know that this expiration is actually after
the reflog has already expired, but there is a loophole there: branches
that have been deleted have their reflogs deleted (some have argued that
this doesn't matter, since the HEAD reflog will still mention the
commits. In most cases, this is true, though there are still a few
exceptions).

I think being conservative here is a good idea. The big reason for this
is to fix the spurious "gc --auto" runs caused by needing to prune. So
there is no downside to increasing the time limit unless you think
people will generate enough objects in that limit to cause the problem
again. In which case they will continue to complain to the list, and we
can drop the time.

-Peff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux