Re: Isn't "dangling" a misnomer?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 
> We seem to use the word "unreachable" to refer to them.
> E.g. fsck and prune do "reachability analysis".

Well, everything that cannot be reached is "unreachable", but not 
everything is "dangling".

Being "dangling" is a very special case of unreachability: it's not 
reachable from _anything_ - including other unreachable objects.

So

	git fsck

will report about dangling objects, but

	git fsck --unreachable

will report about unreachable objects, and the result is *not* the same 
(dangling objects will usually be a very small subset of the unreachable 
ones, since in many cases *most* unreachable objects end up being pointed 
to by other unreachable objects, and are thus not the dangling part).

Maybe we could call the dangling objects "unreachable tips" or something. 
Because dangling => unreachable, but unreachable !=> dangling.

		Linus
-
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]