Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> > It's entirely possible that the proper way to do branch deletion with
> > packed branches is to simply re-pack without the old branch, rather
> > than the negative branch model. I couldn't really decide.
>
> After playing with branch deletion issues for some time, I
> started to think it would be a lot simpler if we do not mark
> a deleted branch with 0{40}.
I also came to the same conclusion and I wonder if we could delete a branch
by moving the file ".git/refs/heads/frotz"
to ".git/deleted-refs/heads/frotz".
If the branch is packed we could perhaps just create
".git/deleted-refs/heads/frotz".
It means everytime we are looking up a ref we have to check
in ".git/deleted-refs/" first to see if it exists.
> But the latter falls apart if we use 0{40} convention to mark a
> deleted branch. Removing .git/refs/heads/frotz/nitfol file which
> has 0{40} and creating .git/refs/heads/frotz file resurrects
> frotz/nitfol branch that is still packed.
If we move ".git/refs/heads/frotz/nitfol"
to ".git/deleted-refs/heads/frotz/nitfol" when we remove this ref, we only
need to try to rmdir all subdirectories under ".git/refs/heads/frotz/" and
then ".git/refs/heads/frotz/" to see if we can
create ".git/refs/heads/frotz", and if we can, we won't
resurect "frotz/nitfol" because ".git/deleted-refs/heads/frotz/nitfol"
still exists.
> Not allowing frotz
> branch to be created only because we had deleted frotz/nitfol
> previously is not what we want either, so at that point we need
> to repack without frotz/nitfol anyway.
>
> Which makes me think that we would better repack when removing
> any existing ref.
Yes but it may not be fast and may be corruption prone.
Christian.
-
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