On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 01:09:10PM -0700, Fred Long wrote: > On 6/4/2024 3:44 AM, Jeff King peff-at-peff.net |git bugs/Example Allow| > wrote: > > In the case of a refs/remotes entry where you happen to know that you > > could re-clone from the other side, it is relatively low stakes. But I > > think keeping a human brain in the loop between corruption and deletion > > is a good thing. Corruption should not be happening so often that it's a > > major pain point. > In my case it's not corruption. It's people creating branches, deleting > them, and then removing the commits. (Maybe our git server has an option to > automatically prune commits that are not reachable from a branch or tag, I > don't know.) But this happens very frequently at my work. Your local refs should not point to missing objects, though. Each clone should maintain its own consistency. Are you using "git clone --shared" or another scheme involving alternates? -Peff
