From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 17:39:49 GMT
Subject: Re: Avoiding broken Gitweb links and deleted objects
Message-ID: <7vd2sikj6i.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAJELnLEOg+D+baAddJvDiYM=ej8PKsgi2MWH25enOijXa+bO_Q@mail.gmail.com>

Matt McClure <matthewlmcclure@gmail.com> writes:

> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> I think what I missed is that the same logic to ignore side branches
>> whose history gets cauterised with such an "ours" merge may apply to
>> an "ours" merge that people already make, but the latter may want to
>> take both histories into account.
>>
>> So I guess it is not such a great idea.
>
> The particular proposed implementation? Or the broader idea to save
> loose commits more permanently? I'm still interested in a solution for
> the latter.

Recording such an "otherwise should not be recorded as a merge" side
history as if it were "-s ours" merge is what I judged as "not a
great idea".

If you want to keep older commits, either you make sure you point at
them with some refs, or not prune the repository.  I do not think of
any other solution offhand.