From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jakub Narebski Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Don't crash during repack of a reflog with pruned commits. Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 02:18:33 +0100 Organization: At home Message-ID: References: <20061222004906.GC14789@spearce.org> <7vmz5g92h7.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20061222010018.GB14773@spearce.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Dec 22 02:17:50 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by dough.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1GxZ2h-0006Vv-8e for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 02:17:47 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1945894AbWLVBRi (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Dec 2006 20:17:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1945899AbWLVBRi (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Dec 2006 20:17:38 -0500 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:34272 "EHLO ciao.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1945894AbWLVBRi (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Dec 2006 20:17:38 -0500 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1GxZ1o-00043p-DH for git@vger.kernel.org; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 02:16:55 +0100 Received: from host-81-190-25-107.torun.mm.pl ([81.190.25.107]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 02:16:52 +0100 Received: from jnareb by host-81-190-25-107.torun.mm.pl with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 02:16:52 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: git@vger.kernel.org X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: host-81-190-25-107.torun.mm.pl Mail-Copies-To: jnareb@gmail.com User-Agent: KNode/0.10.2 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Shawn Pearce wrote: > Junio C Hamano wrote: >> "Shawn O. Pearce" writes: >> >>> If the user has been using reflog for a long time (e.g. since its >>> introduction) then it is very likely that an existing branch's >>> reflog may still mention commits which have long since been pruned >>> out of the repository. >> >> I've thought about this issue when I did the repack/prune; my >> take on this was you should prune reflog first then repack. > > OK, but we should suggest that to the user rather than just > cryptically saying 'fatal: bad object refs/heads/build'. I still think it is a good idea to allow user (experienced user) to set to not consider reflog for saving. Especially that there exist repositories which have reflogs with long pruned commits, and it would be nice to preserve the reflog info, even if some of information is not available. -- Jakub Narebski Warsaw, Poland ShadeHawk on #git