On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 02:47:01PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Speculating on my own question. I guess it would prepare us for a day > > when a possible ref store is to use a packed-refs _without_ loose refs. > > IOW, the property is defined on packed-refs today, but a possible future > > direction would be to use it by itself. But maybe I'm just making things > > up. > > OK. In other words, it's not a packed-refs's characteristics that > cruft are allowed. It's that a ref storage that is implemented as > an overlay of one storage (which happens to be the loose one) on top > of another (which happens to be the packed refs file) allows the > latter one to have cruft if (and only if) that broken one is covered > by the former one. Thanks, that's a much better way of saying what I was trying to get at. I don't know if that's Michael's argument or not, but it's certainly one I find reasonable. :) -Peff
