On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Wincent Colaiuta wrote: > Yes, we shouldn't _encourage_ people to use stashes as a long-term storage > mechanism, but neither should we allow old stashes to silently disappear as a > result of reflog expiry, especially as part of automatic garbage collection. > There are two reasons: > > (1) Normal reflogs accumulate cruft automatically through normal use and if > not cleaned up they'll just grow and grow and grow. On the other hand, for > "git stash" to accumulate cruft over the long term the user actually has to > take action and _abuse_ them. Abuse is less likely because it requires this > conscious action, and as the output of "git stash list" gets bigger and more > unwieldy this will serve to encourage people to clean out their stashes > themselves, or not let the list grow out of control in the first place. In > other words, the size of the stash reflog is unlikely to be a problem. > > (2) Automatically expiring normal reflogs is a service to the user, because > it's cleaning up something that is automatically generated. Stashes are the > result of a concious user decision to create them, so automatically "cleaning > them up" is _not_ going to help the user. > > So yes, branches _are_ better and more appropriate for long term storage than > stashes, but even so I don't think it's right for us to risk throwing away > information that the user explicitly stashed and expected Git to look after > for them. Fair enough. Nicolas -- 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
