Re: Regarding: git-lost+found

From: Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>
Date: Nov 9, 2005, 23:06 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0511091759520.25300@iabervon.org>
In-Reply-To: <7vvez1bjjv.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> Maybe we could use .git/lost+found/{commit,other}/?{40} and hang
> committish under one directory and the rest in another?  Then we
> could do this:
> 
>           $ gitk $(cd .git/lost+found/commit && echo ??*)
> 
> After you find what you want, you would do 'git tag' or 'git
> branch' to reconnect them, but we can reasonably expect that is
> to happen soon after you ran lost+found and before the next time
> you run prune, because that was why you ran git-lost+found in
> the first place.

Why have git-lost+found write to files at all? It seems to me easiest to have the list go to standard out, and you could do "gitk `git-lost+found -t commit`" to see lost commits, and reconnect them as desired. (Making up command line syntax for listing only the commits.)

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*