From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] bash completion: remove deprecated --prune from git-gc Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 06:19:39 -0500 Message-ID: <20081214111939.GC6499@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <200812132008.08543.markus.heidelberg@web.de> <20081214111213.GA6499@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Markus Heidelberg , gitster@pobox.com, git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Dec 14 12:20:59 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 1LBp1v-0004du-BG for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:20:59 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753010AbYLNLTm (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Dec 2008 06:19:42 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753127AbYLNLTm (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Dec 2008 06:19:42 -0500 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:2729 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752901AbYLNLTl (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Dec 2008 06:19:41 -0500 Received: (qmail 29169 invoked by uid 111); 14 Dec 2008 11:19:40 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with SMTP; Sun, 14 Dec 2008 06:19:40 -0500 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 14 Dec 2008 06:19:39 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 12:17:07PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > Which annoyingly has no discussion about _why_ it no longer has an > > effect. But I suspect it has something to do with 25ee973 (gc: call > > "prune --expire 2.weeks.ago" by default, 2008-03-12) by you. > > Oops. > > But I thought that git gc --prune does expire _all_ dangling loose > objects _now_, not with --expire 2.weeks.ago. Nope, see 25ee973. You explicitly wrote: Note that this new behaviour makes "--prune" be a no-op. That being said, I think that is perhaps a reasonable thing for --prune to do (and I don't think there is any conflict with the name, because that is what it _used_ to do before becoming a no-op). But nobody has actually implemented it. -Peff