Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9g

[Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz>]

Dear diary, on Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 06:44:43PM CET, I got a letter
where Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> said that...
> "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> writes:
> 
> > May I *STRONGLY* urge you to name that something different. 
> > "lost+found" is a name with special properties in Unix; for example, 
> > many backup solutions will ignore a directory with that name.
> 
> Yeah, the original proposal (in TODO list) explicitly stated why
> I chose lost-found instead of lost+found back then, and somebody
> on the list (could have been Pasky but I may be mistaken) said
> not to worry.

It was the Large Angry SCM. I share your concern.

> In any case, if we go the route Daniel suggests, we would not be
> storing anything on the filesystem ourselves so this would be a
> non-issue.

I like Daniel's route as well, for the separate command. But it would be
nice to also have a way to tell git-fsck-cache to save the lost+found
refs as it goes, much like the filesystem fsck. So if it reports some
unreachable refs, you will not need to tell it to do the same job
_another_ time to find out the refs and pass them to gitk. Then again,
if we do this, the utility of a separate command will be questionable.

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
VI has two modes: the one in which it beeps and the one in which
it doesn't.