From: Matt McClure <matthewlmcclure@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 13:25:25 GMT
Subject: Re: Avoiding broken Gitweb links and deleted objects
Message-ID: <CAJELnLEOg+D+baAddJvDiYM=ej8PKsgi2MWH25enOijXa+bO_Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vfvxu3ivc.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

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.

-- 
Matt McClure
http://matthewlmcclure.com
http://www.mapmyfitness.com/profile/matthewlmcclure