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. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlReceived on Fri Nov 11 05:03:48 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-11-11 05:03:52 EST