From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-a1-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-a1-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D0CE4CDDFB for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2026 14:51:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.152 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790607061; cv=none; b=eYqvVfem6qYGJMTJ54CAtUqYKhl7+rrSnhn5EkM5/ap/XL+/U0cCxy9KZe4Pdg5yWtP8/zzH+X57U35PDxhP7Iy1PG7Z0LXoiTXf27pohkLCllg5Si90k/UF0ccf/hKbCcwZM9Kbb2o1q4mtM7j7dV60fAcSwrCF9xeazM0/9j8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790607061; c=relaxed/simple; bh=bGY3gdsGTUE7OwGfIeNK8qw17bjTKCfIRiEIZuHVnKM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=gjptey2tgdrHU3smsGaK5T5NGNVdINHgIyZUnNq8evI+77h2ohz2ZDkpbWOit+Fn8YpBx+MeBdyLAHUl+fALNvCr0JKz5Clbq9dFW6JZP4pOGg1p5TbAU9stILD5JuMTwAMJfb8Fe1Ti0sA0NfnVZsmUf7x7R9cYdJl5ErESMDI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=bCRRBlRH; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=uJVLzqDq; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.152 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="bCRRBlRH"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="uJVLzqDq" Received: from phl-compute-06.internal (phl-compute-06.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailfhigh.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79B6514000FC; Mon, 28 Sep 2026 10:50:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-02 ([10.202.2.161]) by phl-compute-06.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 28 Sep 2026 10:50:59 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1790607059; x=1790693459; bh=uUWfEzvx9B dOwC9H5H4FmurZJJq/k4/d3VozJx4hKuU=; b=bCRRBlRHjI9EzsTIIx2QK+6ATY XPSKIFeNVI0s4EdDGJZD4mz5IrWOBbJiJOiHASRO8sCCjh/1RcUTxnwwNY5NddBw ImCLQRZNOapdConof+iBFfn5FfqcMxY9RGb0eHmrKFcwnyByzkLK8YF5lw0Ux/4v TiNBg8jWMLnCzmRrIXFR2ZxZMQI7VmxYnpDDaKuHAzUUfr3NfwEB/X3CPOynzouq kdwyVvfb7kqENReNPftMku8AsfyBj1A3kMFhjM34/pKQY/hVAoCStjiWC5cgEFPZ PoE4lEpzPTNTfl6NYvqjk6ilvOSRZcg0rv7Bf9txmfUbTO5KNb2zI4su58Lw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t= 1790607059; x=1790693459; bh=uUWfEzvx9BdOwC9H5H4FmurZJJq/k4/d3Vo zJx4hKuU=; b=uJVLzqDqTWrJYd1jeUM1xTQaf34gl3Y1YlYO9LA3YT0AHkVW24q BZCKt4CSHtf1EOXIyRDyCIXa4aJwhAftOmv0GlXY8TFbq5/V/18/i2MFWacoVLj7 4bBg4DLAKoMqG5vG/xjc7TREyGPibZUY/1dqH0fxcMih1UvC5g7OH5OkefH0zYlh 3PaEQXbK7Q12FoT5EzZm0NisKzp4/xRYqBlr9aU2dzFW4awaJagsFc29DR9GwVR1 Zv5dx8p1iuZEFD3s21m2Hk2LrBCsGlHeYQWNUBenX5qRquDTgNAJflGi1wqd2lBF Krd8y2k3xWnADjIgMiQKk08SfPkvsKveLJg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: dmFkZTG4Epeg1Q4wpx1bpeS/npMe3Js+cFCFt9aOICC5LkAMIfM77alEcshiD3NOiOGbNQ CJtEzgdtjdt4SZaMMFJ7N/5LP/I1JDquqFzB6mKFpPEzc2ScuGX1aGZ0TSvptmT9Ee7f2E aJe0dBdDBJcJik+IlS9HPad3QdEoOwvlq4WHerx4O5v2sZInawGRIwB4c1sjZYjAT67EtK 6CC3Lx/Mx4e96GmPi1aLmC+QGqTPWmtKMrl7oW526VZr3Z+aqDdSeSCcbzOZAC9l7xzb0Z keHtLMLceeIED+rDOBROb6g88+e1LuBZnBMJmrq+DhmJo1hOIefIoDnqzBv+1XdmB1gHbU BhBuV6jkqIbEapDDqRoWPsBnVCXxYNTU1qlwHfff29F+r/NCYio7UGlFX9aD5uCKVAQVub FGJKG+Y7i1/TqR5rT8TbbcF3xxJHyFfXbCAeHjD5KqW2iMmjUrM4Liv+HlA0v1E5ogQHeR SwH0R84BsuzTfF9uoXt4beV4JCouTq5Q/SzYUHs/RLVBHCJ7ggiihc7fSvilz57Kk9tcmg sP2yA3xiABfnY51DX1DceHWjczgtAESbQJN+Hq/GIFIt4vPRsc4A6vs0Pbr7IViMrtDpJN ipbJonXlKfFhgAOMai3kCGT+CzJdMCEnjWrC1u9Hew1VtP5bBv0wGSQOsBMw X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 28 Sep 2026 10:50:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Patrick Steinhardt Cc: Pushkar Singh , git@vger.kernel.org, peff@peff.net, r.norouzi@proton.me Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] reflog: fix default expiry periods In-Reply-To: (Patrick Steinhardt's message of "Mon, 28 Sep 2026 09:02:23 +0200") References: <20260923102140.25475-2-pushkarkumarsingh1970@gmail.com> <20260924175843.8383-2-pushkarkumarsingh1970@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2026 07:50:57 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Patrick Steinhardt writes: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 05:58:44PM +0000, Pushkar Singh wrote: >> diff --git a/t/t1410-reflog.sh b/t/t1410-reflog.sh >> index 8f78cf4b01..93b5b49e1d 100755 >> --- a/t/t1410-reflog.sh >> +++ b/t/t1410-reflog.sh >> @@ -153,6 +153,72 @@ test_expect_success 'reflog expire should not barf on an annotated tag' ' >> test_grep ! "error: [Oo]bject .* not a commit" err >> ' >> >> +test_expect_success 'reflog expire keeps reachable entries for 90 days' ' >> + test_when_finished "rm -rf reachable-keep" && >> + git init reachable-keep && >> + ( >> + cd reachable-keep && >> + timestamp=$(test-tool date timestamp "60.days.ago") && > > Nit: I would've preferred to make this 89 days... Dates calculated as 89 days ago from the beginning of today, from the end of today, and from this very minute can differ by almost 24 hours. Because we are not interested in testing what semantics approxidate() implements in test-tool date timestamp, but are testing what expiry period reflog expire implements between 30 and 90 days, using numbers that are not too close to the edge spares us from having to worry about boundary cases we do not care about. So I wouldn't have preferred using 89 days there. > Other than that I'm happy with this patch, thanks! > > Patrick Thanks.