Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:
> ---prune::
I am fairly paranoid about end users wondering about what is described in
ancient documentation and complaining that we do not talk about it
anymore. I am tempted to suggest:
This is a no-op but you may see it mentioned in older docs and
scripts. Older git-gc never ran 'prune' without being told, and
this option was a way to tell it to.
but this would lead to littering the documentation with too much
historical information in the long run. I dunno. I am inclined to favor
the removal as your patch did, but somebody else may have clever ideas.
> + if (!strcmp(var, "gc.pruneexpire")) {
> + if (!value)
> + return config_error_nonbool(var);
> + if (strcmp(value, "now") &&
> + approxidate(value) - approxidate("now") >= 0)
> + return error("Invalid gc.pruneExpire: '%s'", value);
Yuck; approxidate() returns ulong. Can subtracting a ulong from another
ever go negative?
Besides, because there is no guarantee of the order of evaluation between
these two approxidate() calls, you may get +1 or -1 on the second boundary.
I think the reason why you did not catch it in your test is because your
tests are half complete; they test only what you wanted to catch
(misconfigured case) and do not test the other half (properly working
case).
--
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
