John Dlugosz wrote: >> The dangling objects can happen if you push over dumb transport and >> interrupt in the middle, or you force a push of a rewound branch, so > it >> does not necessarily indicate any errors, but a missing object is >> always an error. > > > Thanks. > > That's what I thought danglings were. But why doesn't gc get rid of > them? Jeff already explained why in his email to you about "dangling commits ...". What you may not realize (and Jeff hinted at) is that unreferenced objects are created often. This is because the object must be created _before_ the reference to the object is created. The existence of a reference to an object is what differentiates a dangling,unreferenced object from one that is not dangling,unreferenced. Usually, an unreferenced object exists in the repository for a very short time before becoming referenced by the creation of a commit which references it. But, there is always some period of time that an object exists in the repository as a dangling,unreferenced object. That is why gc does not delete all dangling,unreferenced objects that it encounters immediately. As Jeff pointed out, it only deletes those that are two weeks old by default. -brandon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html