Re: Regarding: git-lost+found

From: Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>
Date: Nov 10, 2005, 00:29 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0511091926350.25300@iabervon.org>
In-Reply-To: <7vwtjh8kxu.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

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

Show 13 quoted lines

> Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org> writes:
> 
> > 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.)
> 
> That is certainly cleaner.  The only downside is fsck-objects
> that lost+found uses tends to be expensive operation, and what
> you would want to do with the information may be more than just
> use it on the command line of gitk.  But in any case the user
> could store git-lost+found output in a file to do whatever she
> wants, so it may not matter.

Actually, my next suggestion would be to have gitk able to write hashes as refs, so that, having put it on the gitk command line, you could then do the things you want from there.

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*