On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. ÂNot 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'. ÂOld reflog with > "delete" line would block creating reflog for new branch. Thanks. That makes sense. -- Duy -- 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