Hi Peff, On 2015-06-08 18:56, Jeff King wrote: > On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 06:00:09PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > >> >> I like the idea, but I am a bit uncertain whether it would constitute >> >> "too backwards-incompatible" a change to make this an error. I think >> >> it could be argued both ways: it *is* an improvement, but it could >> >> also possibly disrupt scripts that work pretty nicely at the moment. >> > >> > What kind of script are you worried about? >> >> I was concerned about scripts that work on repositories whose reflogs >> become inconsistent for whatever reason (that happened a lot to me in >> the past, IIRC it had something to do with bare repositories and/or >> shared object databases). > > I think these repositories are already broken. You cannot run `git gc` > in such a repository, as it will barf when trying to walk the reflog > tips during `git repack`. > > We run into this exact situation at GitHub because of our shared object > databases. Our per-fork repack code basically has to do: > > if ! git repack ...; then > git reflog expire --expire-unreachable=all --all && > git repack ... || > die "ok, it really is broken" > fi Good point. So if I needed any more convincing that Michael's patch is a bug fix (as opposed to a backwards-incompatible change), this did it. Ciao, Dscho -- 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