From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Casey Dahlin Subject: Re: [PATCH] logging branch deletion to help recovering from mistakes Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 12:54:18 -0500 Message-ID: <20101207175418.GU355@fearengine.rdu.redhat.com> References: <7vlj42siu5.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20101207162358.GT355@fearengine.rdu.redhat.com> <20101207174520.GB21483@burratino> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Casey Dahlin , Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Jonathan Nieder X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Dec 07 18:54:53 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PQ1kb-0006Lv-12 for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Dec 2010 18:54:53 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751727Ab0LGRyr (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Dec 2010 12:54:47 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:10363 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750819Ab0LGRyq (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Dec 2010 12:54:46 -0500 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oB7HsKOn024607 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 7 Dec 2010 12:54:20 -0500 Received: from fearengine.rdu.redhat.com (dhcp243-150.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.243.150]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oB7HsIML004309 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 7 Dec 2010 12:54:20 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101207174520.GB21483@burratino> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.24 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 11:45:20AM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Casey Dahlin wrote: > > > Could commits made onto a detached head also show up here? Or is that > > better thwarted with another mechanism? > > I think that's better thwarted with the HEAD reflog: > > $ git log -g HEAD I was more worried about changes that were made onto a detached head, and then the head was reattached, leaving the new commits dangling. The end result is identical to a deleted branch, just wondering if we should note it in the same place. --CJD