Re: fsck --full is Ok, but clones are not, "missing commits"?!

From: Brandon Casey <casey@nrlssc.navy.mil>
Date: Apr 17, 2008, 15:41 UTC
Message-ID: <48076F94.7030206@nrlssc.navy.mil>
In-Reply-To: <a537dd660804170753i4dcfd189m45a9581294ce5091@mail.gmail.com>

Brian Foster wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

>  before trying the copying suggestion, I played some
>  more with `filter-branch'.  I had no success at all.
>  as one example, with `--branches' instead of `--all'
>  (one of Brandon's suggestions) produced:
> 
> 	$ git filter-branch --tag-name-filter cat -- --branches
> 	Which ref do you want to rewrite?
> 	$

That's strange. Are there any branches in this repository? Yes, looking at your earlier email:

  at toplevel of a (not-bare) clone, with  info/grafts  in-place,
  and a happy `fsck -full' (same machine so same git version):

	$ git filter-branch --tag-name-filter cat -- --all  # at not-bare toplevel
	Rewrite 7df30811617517bc4d5ec7c190a435667228320c (168/168)
	Ref 'refs/heads/master' was rewritten
	Ref 'refs/remotes/origin/HEAD' was rewritten
  [snip]

Looks like there is a single branch named 'master'.

The command within git-filter-branch.sh that is being called is

   git rev-parse --no-flags --revs-only --symbolic-full-name --default HEAD --branches

In a trim git repository for example this command returns:

   refs/heads/master
   refs/heads/next

Referring to two branches 'master' and 'next'. These are the references that exist in .git/refs/heads/*.

I'd be interested to see what this command returns in your repo. You can compare this output to the output you get using --all and also relate that to the directory structure beneath .git/refs/

-brandon

p.s. It's more polite to keep the people you are responding to in the cc list.
     Take a look at how Hannes did it (the email to which this one is replying).
     Usually it's enough to select 'Reply All'.