Re: [PATCH 2/2] reflog: ignore expire-unreachable for "HEAD" reflog

From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net>
Date: Apr 16, 2010, 01:11 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1004152059100.7232@xanadu.home>
In-Reply-To: <7v7ho8ibi3.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net> writes:
> 
> > I'm a bit worried about this discussion.
> >
> > What's the point of having a reflog for unreachable stuff if it is to be 
> > pruned faster than stuff that is already reachable without any reflog?
> 
> To keep recently failed experiments alive for some time (30 days), but not
> overly long (90 days)?

What is a "failed" experiment is still subjective. It might be possible to realize that part of it was not that bad after all and some pieces could be worth cherry-picking.

Again, keeping reflogs 90 days for stuff that is _already_ reachable through existing refs is much less useful than keeping otherwise unreachable stuff 90 days. So I still don't see the point of this eagerness to prune deleted stuff faster.

If you explicitly want to get rid of failed experiments then it should be done through an explicit prune command. Otherwise I'd argue that reflogs should take care not to lose track of unreachable stuff, even more so than stuff already reachable.

Some people even tried to convince me that reflogs should never expire by default, and that the 3 month grace period was already too short.

Nicolas