Re: [PATCH 6/17] Document the [<head>...] and -- arguments to git-prune.

From

Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>

Date

Dec 9, 2005, 00:28 UTC

Message-ID

<7voe3r9krf.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

In-Reply-To

<7vzmnb9m7w.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> writes:

> Come to think of it, why would anybody want to pass heads
> explicitly?  It seems to me that it would allow you to _lose_
> objects referenced only from omitted branches...

---

diff --git a/Documentation/git-prune.txt b/Documentation/git-prune.txt
index 3367c9b..05c8d49 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-prune.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-prune.txt
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ git-prune - Prunes all unreachable objec
 
 SYNOPSIS
 --------
-'git-prune' [-n]
+'git-prune' [-n] [--] [<head>...]
 
 DESCRIPTION
 -----------
@@ -27,6 +27,34 @@ OPTIONS
 	Do not remove anything; just report what it would
 	remove.
 
+--::
+	Do not interpret any more arguments as options.
+
+<head>...::
+	Instead of keeping objects
+	reachable from any of our references, keep objects
+	reachable from only listed <head>s.
++
+Note that the explicitly named <head>s are *not* appended to the
+default set of references, but they replace them.  In general you
+would want to say `git prune $(git-rev-parse --all) extra1
+extra2` to keep chains of commits leading to extra1, extra2,
+... in addition to what are reachable from your own refs.
+Saying `git prune extra1 extra2` would *lose* objects reachable
+only from the usual refs, which is usually not what you want.
+
+
+EXAMPLE
+-------
+
+To prune objects not used by your repository and another that
+borrows from your repository via its
+`.git/objects/info/alternates`:
+
+------------
+$ git prune $(git-rev-parse --all) \
+  $(cd ../another && $(git-rev-parse --all))
+------------
 
 Author
 ------