Re: [PATCH 2/2] git-gc: skip stashes when expiring reflogs

From: Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se>
Date: Jun 13, 2008, 08:11 UTC
Message-ID: <48522BA1.9010702@op5.se>
In-Reply-To: <20080613074257.GA513@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 09:16:42AM +0200, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
> 
>> To me, long-living stashes are useful because I can all of a sudden be
>> pulled away from something I'm working on and set to work on something
>> entirely different for up to 6 months (so far we haven't had a single
>> emergency project run longer than that). It doesn't happen a lot, but
>> it *does* happen.
> 
> So of course my first question is "then why didn't you use a branch?" :)
>

Because stashes are convenient, never get propagated anywhere by accident, are easy to apply, means you won't have the hassle of creating "topic-bugs" and later merge it into "topic" when you find something you need to fix before you merge "topic" into "master". There are lots of good reasons.

Show 16 quoted lines

> 
>> I think these are the options we're faced with:
>> 1. Never expire stashes (don't shoot the user)
>> 2. Don't treat stashes specially (shoot the user)
>> 3. Don't purge stashes when auto-gc-ing (let the users shoot themselves)
>> 4. Make the behaviour configurable (let the users shoot themselves)
>> 5. Double the expiration time on stashes and warn for them when they should
>>   normally have expired (during gc, that is) (shoot the user, but warn first).
> 
> I am tempted by #3, which again matches my workflow. But again, it seems
> like an accident waiting to happen for unsuspecting users.
> 
> So I think either #1 or #4 is reasonable. #4 probably isn't worth the
> effort. If the stash reflog gets too cluttered, one can always expire or
> clean it manually.
>

Right. If #1 gets dropped, I'll most likely hack up #4 though. I'd hate for one part of git to be able to silently drop work when every other aspect of it makes damn sure that never, ever happens.

I can imagine lots of people complaining if the merge logic suddenly starts clobbering dirty work-tree files with an mtime 90 days in the past, even though the user hasn't explicitly asked git to take care of those at all.

-- 
Andreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson@op5.se
OP5 AB                             www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231