Re: ghost refs

From: Yann Dirson <yann.dirson@bertin.fr>
Date: Apr 20, 2010, 07:02 UTC
Message-ID: <loom.20100420T085842-887@post.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100407210010.GB27012@coredump.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff <at> peff.net> writes:

Show 12 quoted lines

> On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 12:58:33PM -0400, Avery Pennarun wrote:
> 
> > This is on purpose, based on the theory that you don't want to lose
> > data from your local repo just because someone (accidentally?) deletes
> > a branch on the remote server.  Unfortunately, this theory is a bit
> > flawed, since someone could just as easily overwrite the remote branch
> > with a totally different commit, and you'd still lose it in *that*
> > case.  So mostly it's just confusing.
> 
> You do have a reflog in the case of overwrite. Delete kills off any
> associated reflog (it would be cool if we had a "graveyard" reflog that
> kept deleted branch reflogs around for a while).

Wouldn't it jus be sufficient to keep reflogs on branch deletion, and let reflog entries subject be expired by gc just like for any branch, so that way we may only need to gc the reflog itself when it becomes empty ?

-- 
Yann