From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Recovering from missing objects? Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 01:10:46 -0500 Message-ID: <20090220061046.GA28122@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <7vvdr6j6hz.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20090220025810.GB22419@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7vmychiqr3.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Feb 20 07:12:50 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LaOcY-000569-6q for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 07:12:22 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752385AbZBTGKu (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Feb 2009 01:10:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752348AbZBTGKu (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Feb 2009 01:10:50 -0500 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:56956 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752129AbZBTGKs (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Feb 2009 01:10:48 -0500 Received: (qmail 32432 invoked by uid 107); 20 Feb 2009 06:11:10 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 01:11:10 -0500 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 20 Feb 2009 01:10:46 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vmychiqr3.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:09:20PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Might it not be simpler to just copy or hardlink the pack from the new > > clone into the old directory's .git/objects/pack? That will get more > > than you need, but things should start working, at which point a "git > > repack -a -d" will make it small again. > > > > Or am I misunderstanding something? > > If you already have a good clone and a half-broken one locally, of course, > what you said is the easiest. > > I just assumed that Geert did not really want to copy the whole pack. > Maybe he doesn't mind in this particular case, but the next breakage may > involve gigapacks he'd rather not re-clone. Ah, OK. I had the impression that he had already made a new valid clone on the local box. > I also assumed that anybody who is reading the message can easily guess > that the copy I was demonstrating in the description could be done across > machines, instead of via local /var/tmp/, and "In the new clone" steps > could even be done in the original one. Presenting the knowledge that > way, the solution hopefully would be adjustable for more people who are > reading this thread. Makes sense. Thanks. -Peff