Hi,
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 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.
Well, if you want to, I am quite willing to adapt the patch. (I care
enough about the real issue, namely that "prune" should be called
automatically.)
> > + 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).
Yes, probably. Of course, comparing a difference to 0 is absolutely
moronic.
I should have written
approxidate(value) >= approxidate("now"))
in the first place.
So, could you tell me, please, if I should resend the patch with your
--prune documentation, or without?
Ciao,
Dscho
--
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
