Git-prune-script loses blobs referenced from an uncommitted cache.
(updated from the version posted to GIT mailing list). When a new blob is registered with update-cache, and before the cache is written as a tree and committed, git-fsck-cache will find the blob unreachable. This patch adds a new flag, "--cache" to git-fsck-cache, with which it keeps such blobs from considered "unreachable". The git-prune-script is updated to use this new flag. At the same time it adds .git/refs/*/* to the set of default locations to look for heads, which should be consistent with expectations from Cogito users. Without this fix, "diff-cache -p --cached" after git-prune-script has pruned the blob object will fail mysteriously and git-write-tree would also fail. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
This commit is contained in:
@ -1,2 +1,37 @@
|
||||
#!/bin/sh
|
||||
git-fsck-cache --unreachable $(cat .git/HEAD ) | grep unreachable | cut -d' ' -f3 | sed 's:^\(..\):.git/objects/\1/:' | xargs rm
|
||||
|
||||
dryrun=
|
||||
while case "$#" in 0) break ;; esac
|
||||
do
|
||||
case "$1" in
|
||||
-n) dryrun=echo ;;
|
||||
--) break ;;
|
||||
-*) echo >&2 "usage: git-prune-script [ -n ] [ heads... ]"; exit 1 ;;
|
||||
*) break ;;
|
||||
esac
|
||||
shift;
|
||||
done
|
||||
|
||||
# Defaulting to include .git/refs/*/* may be debatable from the
|
||||
# purist POV but power users can always give explicit parameters
|
||||
# to the script anyway.
|
||||
|
||||
case "$#" in
|
||||
0)
|
||||
x_40='[0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f]'
|
||||
x_40="$x_40$x_40$x_40$x_40$x_40$x_40$x_40$x_40"
|
||||
set x $(sed -ne "/^$x_40\$/p" .git/HEAD .git/refs/*/* 2>/dev/null)
|
||||
shift ;;
|
||||
esac
|
||||
|
||||
git-fsck-cache --cache --unreachable "$@" |
|
||||
sed -ne '/unreachable /{
|
||||
s/unreachable [^ ][^ ]* //
|
||||
s|\(..\)|\1/|p
|
||||
}' | {
|
||||
case "$SHA1_FILE_DIRECTORY" in
|
||||
'') cd .git/objects/ ;;
|
||||
*) cd "$SHA1_FILE_DIRECTORY" ;;
|
||||
esac || exit
|
||||
xargs -r $dryrun rm -f
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
Reference in New Issue
Block a user