From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Pitre Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] git-gc: skip stashes when expiring reflogs Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:14:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <5vuJsx6Kidj7e8EABk_d63dLAYuWF-S880RrJKu83cJo_ejU3VN-VA@cipher.nrlssc.navy.mil> <20080611213648.GA13362@glandium.org> <20080611230344.GD19474@sigill.intra.peff.net> <6413041E-A64A-4BF4-9ECF-F7BFA5C1EAEF@wincent.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: Eric Raible , Git Mailing List To: Wincent Colaiuta X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Jun 12 16:15:42 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 1K6naP-0003Lg-Kg for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:15:34 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762762AbYFLOOh (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:14:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1762759AbYFLOOh (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:14:37 -0400 Received: from relais.videotron.ca ([24.201.245.36]:26769 "EHLO relais.videotron.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1762742AbYFLOOf (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:14:35 -0400 Received: from xanadu.home ([66.131.194.97]) by VL-MH-MR002.ip.videotron.ca (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-4.01 (built Aug 3 2007; 32bit)) with ESMTP id <0K2C005GKSW6OAJ0@VL-MH-MR002.ip.videotron.ca> for git@vger.kernel.org; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:14:31 -0400 (EDT) X-X-Sender: nico@xanadu.home In-reply-to: <6413041E-A64A-4BF4-9ECF-F7BFA5C1EAEF@wincent.com> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (LFD 962 2008-03-14) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: 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