Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Good point. You dropped the bit about the notes (texts) being kept > alive. I don't know if you did that intentionally are not. Yes, I did it on purpose, because it is just one of the things that can be reached from refs/, but we shouldn't write our document for those like me, who know what notes and other things in Git are. > I initially > thought that we should keep that bit, but it's probably not actually > very useful information. Users probably don't have large amounts of > information stored in notes, so they probably don't care whether notes > text is kept, especially since there's no good way of pruning the > notes. I am not sure if I agree with any part of the above. End-user data is precious no matter the volume, and we keep notes by making them reachable from refs in the refs/notes/ hierarchy. I am not sure what qualifies, in your eyes, "good" way, but "git notes prune" is a good way to remove notes that are attached to objects that have already been pruned away.
