Re: [PATCH v2] docs: clarify that refs/notes/ do not keep the attached objects alive

> `git help gc` contains this snippet:
>
>   "[...] it will keep [..] objects referenced by the index,
>   remote-tracking branches, notes saved by git notes under refs/notes/"
>
> I had interpreted that as saying that the objects that notes were
> attached to are kept, but that is not the case. Let's clarify the
> documentation by moving out the part about git notes to a separate
> sentence.
>
> Signed-off-by: Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com>
> ---

>  Documentation/git-gc.txt | 14 ++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-gc.txt b/Documentation/git-gc.txt
> index 0c114ad1ca..52824269a8 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-gc.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/git-gc.txt
> @@ -117,12 +117,14 @@ NOTES
>  'git gc' tries very hard not to delete objects that are referenced
>  anywhere in your repository. In particular, it will keep not only
>  objects referenced by your current set of branches and tags, but also
> -objects referenced by the index, remote-tracking branches, notes saved
> -by 'git notes' under refs/notes/, reflogs (which may reference commits
> -in branches that were later amended or rewound), and anything else in
> -the refs/* namespace.  If you are expecting some objects to be deleted
> -and they aren't, check all of those locations and decide whether it
> -makes sense in your case to remove those references.
> +objects referenced by the index, remote-tracking branches, reflogs
> +(which may reference commits in branches that were later amended or
> +rewound), and anything else in the refs/* namespace. Notes saved by
> +'git notes' under refs/notes/ will be kept, but the objects (typically
> +commits) they are attached to will not be. If you are expecting some
> +objects to be deleted and they aren't, check all of those locations
> +and decide whether it makes sense in your case to remove those
> +references.
>  
>  On the other hand, when 'git gc' runs concurrently with another process,
>  there is a risk of it deleting an object that the other process is using