Finally, this resurrects the documented behaviour to protect other
objects listed on the command line from getting pruned.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
It seems that git prune changed behaviour with respect to revisions added
from command line, probably when it became a builtin. Currently, it prints
a short usage and exits: instead, it should take those revisions into
account and not prune them. So add a couple of test to point this out.
We'll be fixing this by switching to parse_options(), so add tests to
detect bogus command line parameters as well, to keep ourselves from
introducing regressions.
Signed-off-by: Michele Ballabio <barra_cuda@katamail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The only reason we did not call "prune" in git-gc was that it is an
inherently dangerous operation: if there is a commit going on, you will
prune loose objects that were just created, and are, in fact, needed by the
commit object just about to be created.
Since it is dangerous, we told users so. That led to many users not even
daring to run it when it was actually safe. Besides, they are users, and
should not have to remember such details as when to call git-gc with
--prune, or to call git-prune directly.
Of course, the consequence was that "git gc --auto" gets triggered much
more often than we would like, since unreferenced loose objects (such as
left-overs from a rebase or a reset --hard) were never pruned.
Alas, git-prune recently learnt the option --expire <minimum-age>, which
makes it a much safer operation. This allows us to call prune from git-gc,
with a grace period of 2 weeks for the unreferenced loose objects (this
value was determined in a discussion on the git list as a safe one).
If you want to override this grace period, just set the config variable
gc.pruneExpire to a different value; an example would be
[gc]
pruneExpire = 6.months.ago
or even "never", if you feel really paranoid.
Note that this new behaviour makes "--prune" be a no-op.
While adding a test to t5304-prune.sh (since it really tests the implicit
call to "prune"), also the original test for "prune --expire" was moved
there from t1410-reflog.sh, where it did not belong.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Write errors when repacking (eg, due to out-of-space conditions)
can leave temporary packs (and possibly other files beginning
with "tmp_") lying around which no existing
codepath removes and which aren't obvious to the casual user.
These can also be multi-megabyte files wasting noticeable space.
Unfortunately there's no way to definitely tell in builtin-prune
that a tmp_ file is not being used by a concurrent process,
such as a fetch. However, it is documented that pruning should
only be done on a quiet repository and --expire is honoured
(using code from Johannes Schindelin, along with a test case
he wrote) so that its safety is the same as that of loose
object pruning.
Since they might be signs of a problem (unlike orphaned loose
objects) the names of any removed files are printed.
Signed-off-by: David Tweed (david.tweed@gmail.com)
Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
