On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 11:39:15AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Actually I do; I think it breaks correctness a big way (the second > paragraph of the proposed log message of the following). > [...] > However, it is a different matter if a commit is _not_ known to be > reachable and the commit is known to be unreachable. Because you can > rewind a ref to an ancient commit and then reset it back to the original > tip, a recent reflog entry can point at a commit that older than the > expire-total timestamp and we shouldn't expire it. For that reason, we > had to run merge-base computation when a commit is _not_ known to be > reachable. Oh, right. Didn't I even mention that case earlier in the thread? I was just being dumb. Or maybe I was pretending to be dumb, so that I could trick you into writing the patch. Who knows? > [patch] Patch looked fine from my reading. I no longer have Frans' gigantic test repo available, though, so I can't test whether it fixes the problem (but I'm pretty sure it must from my earlier analysis). -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