Re: [PATCH] docs: clarify that refs/notes/ do not keep the attached objects alive

>
> Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com> writes:
>
> >  ... In particular, it will keep not only
> > +objects referenced by the index, remote-tracking branches, reflogs
> > +(which may reference commits in branches that were later amended or
> > +rewound), and anything else in the refs/* namespace. Notes saved by
> > +'git notes' under refs/notes/ will be kept, but the objects (typically
> > +commits) they are attached to will not be.
>
> The notes will not contribute in keeping the objects they are
> attached to.  As long as the objects have some paths from refs and
> reflog entries (reachability anchors), they will be kept.  These
> two are facts.
>
> But I am afraid that the new phrasing can be misread as saying that
> an object, if it has notes attached to it, will not be kept, period.
>
> Knowing Git, we can tell immediately that it would be a nonsense
> behaviour, but still, I think that is how it can be read, so I
> suspect that the new text would invite a misunderstanding in the
> opposite direction.
>
>     ... and anything else in the refs/* namespace.  Note that a note
>     attached to an object does not contribute in keeping the object
>     alive.
>
> would be less misinterpretation-inducing, perhaps.

>
> We could go further to explain by adding something like that
> immediately after "keeping the object alive" above, e.g.
>
>     ---when an object becomes unreachable (e.g. a branch gets
>     rewound, a commit gets rewritten) and eventually gets pruned, a
>     note attached to the object will become dangling (use "git notes
>     prune" to remove them).
>
> but I am not sure if that is necessary.  Pruning notes attached to
> objects that are pruned may be relevant in the context of discussing
> "git gc", I guess.