From: Junio C Hamano Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2026 18:07:53 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] builtin/reflog: say "would prune" for named refs with --dry-run Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20261024013850.66448-1-laveeshb@laveeshbansal.com> Laveesh Bansal writes: > With --dry-run --verbose, "git reflog expire --all" reports the entries > it would remove as "would prune", but when refs are named on the command > line it reports them as "prune", which looks as if they were removed: > > $ git reflog expire --dry-run --verbose --expire=now HEAD > prune commit (initial): first > > Nothing is removed in either case, only the label is wrong. This was > reported at [1]. > > fcd2c3d9d8 (reflog + refs-backend: move "verbose" out of the backend, > 2021-12-22) added dry_run to struct expire_reflog_policy_cb and set it > in the --all loop, but not in the loop for named refs. Set it there > too. > ... > diff --git a/builtin/reflog.c b/builtin/reflog.c > index 1211c58fa4..49e5453dd9 100644 > --- a/builtin/reflog.c > +++ b/builtin/reflog.c > @@ -279,7 +279,10 @@ static int cmd_reflog_expire(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix, > > for (i = 0; i < argc; i++) { > char *ref; > - struct expire_reflog_policy_cb cb = { .opts = opts }; > + struct expire_reflog_policy_cb cb = { > + .opts = opts, > + .dry_run = !!(flags & EXPIRE_REFLOGS_DRY_RUN), > + }; This obviously mimics what happens in the "if (do_all)" side. But I have to wonder why nobody finds it disgusting that what happens inside the "for_each_string_list_item()" and the later "for (i = 0; i < rgc; i++)" loop have striking similarity between them. Would it make sense to retructure the code flow to if (do_all) { collect "all" to a strvec or string list } foreach arg in argv[]) { add arg to the same strvec or string list } foreach ref in collected { do the expiration of ref's reflog } That will help prevent a similar bug from ever happening again, as there would be only a single place that sets up how the expiration is called, instead of two we currently have.