threads / discuss / 44537

dangling commits in worktree

Subject: dangling commits in worktree

## tl;dr

3 messages between Nov 23, 2016 and Nov 23, 2016.

replies: 2people: 2as markdown or json

Van Oostenryck Luc· Nov 23, 2016, 00:52 UTC · lore

Hi,

More or less by error I used the fsck command in a worktree and I had the surprised to see that it reported a lot of dangling commits while it was not supposed to have one. I quickly realized that it was the case only in the worktree, in the main dir things were OK. While experimenting a bit I also saw that git gc had not the same effect in a worktree than in the main tree (the pack was smaller, more files were left in objects/xx/ dirs), which is even more odd and a bit scary when thinking to the pruning.

This seems like a bug to me and googling about it didn't returned anything.

Luc Van Oostenryck

Duy Nguyen· Nov 23, 2016, 09:45 UTC · re: Van Oostenryck Luc · lore

Re: dangling commits in worktree

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 7:52 AM, Van Oostenryck Luc <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> Hi,
>
> More or less by error I used the fsck command in a worktree and I had
> the surprised to see that it reported a lot of dangling commits while it was
> not supposed to have one.
> I quickly realized that it was the case only in the worktree, in the main dir
> things were OK. While experimenting a bit I also saw that git gc had not the
> same effect in a worktree than in the main tree (the pack was smaller, more
> files were left in objects/xx/ dirs), which is even more odd and a bit
> scary when thinking to the pruning.
>
> This seems like a bug to me and googling about it didn't returned anything.

It's a known issue that gc (and maybe some others that do rev-list --all, like fsck) "forgets" about some worktree's refs and you will see what you see. Work on it was postponed because the "refs" subsystem was being refactored. I think I'm resuming it soon.

-- 
Duy

Luc Van Oostenryck· Nov 23, 2016, 14:15 UTC · re: Duy Nguyen · lore

Re: dangling commits in worktree

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 04:45:56PM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote:

> 
> It's a known issue that gc (and maybe some others that do rev-list
> --all, like fsck) "forgets" about some worktree's refs and you will
> see what you see.

Good. I just wanted to be sure it was a known problem. Thanks for the info.

Luc