On Fri, 9 Dec 2011, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Sat, 3 Dec 2011, Brandon Casey wrote: > > > >> Linus's scenario of fetching a lot of stuff that never actually makes > >> it into the reflogs is still a valid problem. I'm not sure that > >> people who don't know what they are doing are going to run into this > >> problem though. Since he fetches a lot of stuff without ever checking > >> it out or creating a branch from it, potentially many objects become > >> unreferenced every time FETCH_HEAD changes. > > > > Maybe FETCH_HEAD should have a reflog too? > > It is a feature that the objects that were fetched for a quick peek become > immediately unreferenced and eligible for early removal unless they are > kept somewhere, e.g. remote tracking refs. What problem are we trying to > solve? This is indeed a tangential observation to the expiration delay. I was just suggesting that having a reflog for FETCH_HEAD in the case when you fetch a branch with an explicit URL might be handy. Nicolas -- 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