Re: [PATCH] gc: call "prune --expire 2.weeks.ago"

From: Marko Kreen <markokr@gmail.com>
Date: Mar 12, 2008, 15:32 UTC
Message-ID: <e51f66da0803120832p579d49fdmc4801b004e8cdabb@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0803121105481.2947@xanadu.home>

On 3/12/08, Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > 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?
>
> To the average user, maybe not.  But My ack is orthogonal to that issue.

Well, I'm a newbie user and now I'm trained to always do "gc --prune", because "gc" itself does not make tree "really" clean.

But this will quite likely bit me in the long run.

So from my newbie perspective, anything that decreases number of mandatory arguments to commands is good. *cough* commit -a *cough*

But the difference from 'commit -a' is that its not a style issue - "gc" without --prune will keep stuff around indefinitely, which makes occasional --prune usage mandatory. As its annoying to memorize when it was last ran, its easier to use it always.

So from my newbie perpective, +1 for making plain "gc" work.

-- 
marko