From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Ericsson Subject: Re: dangling commits Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:28:13 +0100 Message-ID: <43CB753D.2030706@op5.se> References: <7vslrp2nw0.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20060115221108.3ED2E352659@atlas.denx.de> <20060116085238.GA3768@fiberbit.xs4all.nl> <7vr778wmj3.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20060116101722.GB5196@fiberbit.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jan 16 11:28:23 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EyRb3-00083c-C9 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:28:21 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932323AbWAPK2Q (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jan 2006 05:28:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932322AbWAPK2Q (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jan 2006 05:28:16 -0500 Received: from linux-server1.op5.se ([193.201.96.2]:14275 "EHLO smtp-gw1.op5.se") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932320AbWAPK2P (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jan 2006 05:28:15 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.20] (unknown [213.88.215.14]) by smtp-gw1.op5.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC2D76BCBE; Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:28:13 +0100 (CET) User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.1.fc4 (X11/20050929) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Marco Roeland In-Reply-To: <20060116101722.GB5196@fiberbit.xs4all.nl> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Marco Roeland wrote: > On Monday January 16th Junio C Hamano wrote: > > >>Even when you use git native protocol, the objects the initial >>clone gives you are kept packed, so when I rewind and rebuild >>"pu" to make some of these objects orphaned, they will stay in >>the pack the initial clone gave you. Unpack+repack is needed to >>get rid of them. > > > Thanks very much for explaining. It makes sense now. > > Does it bring many advantages for you to keep rebasing "pu"? Since "pu" = "proposed updates" it only makes sense to keep it on top of the current master, otherwise the effort required for anyone to test it in conjunction with the latest master branch would simply be too great. > I started > out following that branch long ago (well in git reckoning anyway) but > got very scared each time I got a bunch of "errors" on that one. > I since removed it from the "Pull" list, but understand that "+pu" > should do the trick. I'll retry using it one of these days. It does. I also remember seeing lots of errors on that one when I first started with git (around 0.99b), but that was fixed quite some time ago. -- Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231