Re: Consider adding pruning of refs to git maintenance

>
> Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:
>
> > If we want to have such a feature I'd thus claim that it would be most
> > sensible to make it opt-in rather than opt-out. I wouldn't want to be
> > surprised by remote refs vanishing after going to bed, but may be okay
> > with it when I explicitly ask for it.
> >
> > At that point one has to raise the question whether it is still all that
> > useful compared to running `git remote prune` manually every now and
> > then. Mostly because explicitly configuring maintenance is probably
> > something that only power users would do, and those power users would
> > likely know to prune manually.
>
> I am 100% in agreement with your reasoning.  If this thing is to
> exist, it has to be opt-in.  We also need to add ample warning why
> doing this asynchronously behind user's back while the user could be
> working in the same repository is prone to cause surprises in the
> documentation in big red letters.
>
> I however am OK with the idea of having it as an optional "task"
> that is disabled by default in "git maintenance".  "git maintenance"
> can be viewed as a platform-neutral way to set up scheduled tasks.
>
> A user may be a Git expert who knows what `git remote prune` does,
> and understands and accepts the risk of confusion doing so without
> explicit "do it now" from the end-user, but may not be a Linux or a
> macOS or a Windows expert to know how to write crontab or its
> equivalents on various schemes to define scheduled tasks.
>
> Thanks.