Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 4:16 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> +#define BRANCH_DELETION_LOG "DELETED-REFS" >>>> + >>> >>> Should this special log be mentioned in git-update-ref.txt or >>> gitrepository-layout.txt? >> >> Perhaps, but I wasn't sure if this patch itself is a good idea to begin >> with. Not the problem it tries to solve, but its approach. >> >> For example, this cannot be shown with "reflog show" or "log -g" due to >> the way these frontends locate the reflog file to read (the logic wants to >> have an underlying ref). >> > > I think you have thought of this. What's wrong with keeping reflog > when a branch is removed and appending "delete" line to the said > reflog? I don't know how reflogs are managed, but those reflogs > without associated branch will (or should) be cleaned when they are > expired. > > I stick with this idea because I also want to archive old branches and > am thinking those reflogs ending with "archive" line will be kept > forever, or until I feel like digging up them again. The problem with this idea is deleting branch 'foo' and creating 'foo/bar', or deleting branch 'foo/bar' and creating branch 'foo'. Old reflog with "delete" line would block creating reflog for new branch. -- Jakub Narebski Poland ShadeHawk on #git -- 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