On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > The "pruned" line basically means that we are deleting that ref, and > then we complain immediately about that very ref (which is probably > pointing to the null sha1 or something at this point). We tend to cache > packed refs, so that may be the cause. Actually, it force updated two refs, created one, and deleted one, and then immediately complained about the force-updated refs - but only after moving on into the next remote update. My best guess would still be that as you suggest there's an out of date cache - it gets updated within the "update steph" part, but when it moves on to "update kevin" it doesn't have all the new information. > So either we need to invalidate that ref from the cache when it gets > deleted, or perhaps we are already invalidating it and we need to be > respecting that invalidation in other parts of the code. I'll take a > look. > > -Peff > -- 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