Re: fsck --full is Ok, but clones are not, "missing commits"?!

[Brandon Casey <casey@nrlssc.navy.mil>]

Brian Foster wrote:

>  before trying the copying suggestion, I played some
>  more with `filter-branch'.  I had no success at all.
>  as one example, with `--branches' instead of `--all'
>  (one of Brandon's suggestions) produced:
> 
> 	$ git filter-branch --tag-name-filter cat -- --branches
> 	Which ref do you want to rewrite?
> 	$

That's strange. Are there any branches in this repository? Yes, looking at
your earlier email:

  at toplevel of a (not-bare) clone, with  info/grafts  in-place,
  and a happy `fsck -full' (same machine so same git version):

	$ git filter-branch --tag-name-filter cat -- --all  # at not-bare toplevel
	Rewrite 7df30811617517bc4d5ec7c190a435667228320c (168/168)
	Ref 'refs/heads/master' was rewritten
	Ref 'refs/remotes/origin/HEAD' was rewritten
  [snip]

Looks like there is a single branch named 'master'.


The command within git-filter-branch.sh that is being called is

   git rev-parse --no-flags --revs-only --symbolic-full-name --default HEAD --branches

In a trim git repository for example this command returns:

   refs/heads/master
   refs/heads/next

Referring to two branches 'master' and 'next'. These are the references
that exist in .git/refs/heads/*.

I'd be interested to see what this command returns in your repo. You can compare
this output to the output you get using --all and also relate that to the
directory structure beneath .git/refs/

-brandon


p.s. It's more polite to keep the people you are responding to in the cc list.
     Take a look at how Hannes did it (the email to which this one is replying).
     Usually it's enough to select 'Reply All'.