As I recall the GC will only touch things that have been deleted for some time (a month?), that's a long time to correct accidental deletions.
Garbage is created every time you amend or rebase. What is the value of keeping around commits that are unreachable through any branch, containing typos in the commit messages?
It seems to me that source control can really bring out the hoarder in people, a fear of throwing away anything because you might need it later. I prefer it when the commits in a repo tell a story, but keeping everything that didn't end up on the master branch... why?
> As I recall the GC will only touch things that have been deleted for some time (a month?), that's a long time to correct accidental deletions.
That is what I mean by second class citizen. The same logic doesn't apply to deleted files in a branch. If I delete a file it may not be accidental at all, and still I expect it to be accessible and not be considered 'orphaned', 'garbage' or similar. Why doesn't git throw away everything that is older than 90 days? (the default for gc)
Garbage is created every time you amend or rebase. What is the value of keeping around commits that are unreachable through any branch, containing typos in the commit messages?
It seems to me that source control can really bring out the hoarder in people, a fear of throwing away anything because you might need it later. I prefer it when the commits in a repo tell a story, but keeping everything that didn't end up on the master branch... why?