Stephen R. van den Berg wrote: > Nicolas Pitre wrote: >>On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, Stephen R. van den Berg wrote: >>> Not quite. Obviously all parents of p and p^ will continue to exist. >>> I.e. deleting branch B will cause all commits from p till the tip of B >>> (except p itself) to vanish. Keeping p implies that the whole chain of >>> parents below p will continue to exist and be reachable. That's the way >>> a git repository works. > >>And that's what I called stupid in my earlier reply to you. Either you >>have proper branches or tags keeping P around, or deleting B brings >>everything not reachable through other branches or tags (or reflog) >>away too. Otherwise there is no point making a dangling origin link >>valid. > > Well, the principle of least surprise dictates that they should be kept > by gc as described above, however... > I can envision an option to gc say "--drop-weak-links" which does > exactly what you describe. Well, IIRC the need for this was one of the causes of "death" of 'prior' header link proposal... -- Jakub Narebski Poland -- 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
