Dear diary, on Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 12:23:41AM CEST, I got a letter
where Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> told me that...
quoted text
> Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz> writes:
> > .... But fetching the tags will cause all the commits
> > connected to the tags getting slurped too, and we didn't want that.
> 
> What is the objective here?  If you fetch a tag without the
> object being tagged (or commit without its tree), you will end
> up with smaller object database but you would get yelled at by
> git-fsck-objects.

Yes - so you can't save the tag objects either, but then you'll re-slurp
them again and again, which is kind of silly. Alternatively, you could
actually make git-fsck-object silent about the case when an unreachable
(not referenced in refs/) tag object references a non-existing object -
perhaps unless --strict is passed to it. If you think the rest of my
logic is ok, I think this change to facilitate this "tags caching" is
not unreasonable.

The alternative solution would be to have the tags cache with the tag
objects separate of the main object database, but that'd be very dirty.

-- 
				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.html