From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: git gc & deleted branches Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 16:56:53 -0400 Message-ID: <20080508205652.GB32762@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20080508183926.GA30613@sigill.intra.peff.net> <48235D99.2040407@nrlssc.navy.mil> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Guido Ostkamp , git@vger.kernel.org To: Brandon Casey X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu May 08 22:57:47 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JuDBN-000133-1v for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 08 May 2008 22:57:41 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753488AbYEHU4w (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 May 2008 16:56:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752964AbYEHU4w (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 May 2008 16:56:52 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:3974 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753450AbYEHU4u (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 May 2008 16:56:50 -0400 Received: (qmail 22692 invoked by uid 111); 8 May 2008 20:56:49 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 May 2008 16:56:49 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 08 May 2008 16:56:53 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48235D99.2040407@nrlssc.navy.mil> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 03:07:53PM -0500, Brandon Casey wrote: > btw, this is _really_ a non-issue. It seems to keep coming up on the list. > > Just know that each one of the config options that you set to zero, including > the one Jeff suggested setting to "now", is a safety mechanism that is there > to ensure that you never ever lose data and that mistakes are recoverable. Yes, I want to chime in since I have been giving advice in such threads: Please don't construe my help as any sort of endorsement of this behavior. Git tries hard not to lose your data, and it is almost always a bad idea to try to override these safety checks unless you really know what you are doing. And even then, try to consider balancing a bit of freed disk space (and generally _no_ performance gain, because git is very good about not looking at objects that aren't necessary to the current operation) versus thinking "oops, I wish I still had that data" in a few days. I can think offhand of only one time when it was truly useful for me to prune aggressively, and it was a very special case: a pathologically large repo for which I was doing a one-shot conversion from another format (and I wanted to prune failed attempts). -Peff