From: Eric Raible <raible@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:35:10 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] git-gc: skip stashes when expiring reflogs
Message-ID: <279b37b20806121335p90a6d40qb39b73f71dae990b@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vzlpqza0t.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Wincent Colaiuta <win@wincent.com> writes:
>
>> 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.
>
> Yes, but for a limited amount of time.
>

A limited amount of time?  Why is that?  Can you give a rationale which
at least addresses Wincent's points?

It's bad enough that 'git stash clear' drops all pending stashes w/out
at least echoing them (the way git stash drop does), but what is the
rationale for having git _ever_ forget information which it was specifically
requested to remember?

I know that stash is implemented in terms of reflogs, but that seems
to me an implementation detail which ought not leak out.  Especially
if that leakage ends up forgetting potentially important data.

- Eric