From: Daniel Barkalow Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 23:06:04 GMT Subject: Re: Regarding: git-lost+found Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7vvez1bjjv.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote: > 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*