From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 06:49:07 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gc: call "prune --expire 2.weeks.ago"
Message-ID: <7vbq5k77z0.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0803112234470.2947@xanadu.home>

Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> writes:

>> Can we also have "why this is a good idea", "what problem this solves"?
>
> FWIW, my agreeing with the "why this is a good idea" can be translated 
> into:
>
> Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>

Hmmm.  Is it _that_ obvious?

At least it would be easier to readers if we had something like this in
the documentation (and/or the commit message):

    "git gc" used to never prune unreachable objects without being
    explicitly told to, with its --prune option.  This left cruft to
    accumulate; the user eventually has to run "git prune" manually.

    It is safe to prune old objects that are unreachable from refs nor
    reflogs.  "git gc" is updated to run "git prune --expire 2.weeks.ago"
    so that users has to run "git prune" by hand much less often.

Is it too much to ask for regulars to set the example of justifying why
each of the change is a good idea?