On Aug 12, 2013 11:06 PM, "Duy Nguyen" <pclo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:37 PM, David Jeske <dav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Is there currently any way to say "hey, git, show me what commits are
> > dangling that might be lost in the reflog?"
> How do you define dangling commits?

Any commit which I did not explicitly do something with. (Merge,
rebase, amend, branch name, discard)

Today every one of those actions is explicit except discard.

> When you do "git commit --amend",
> the current commit will become dangling (in the sense that it's not
> referred by any ref, but the commit exists) and those are just noise
> in my opinion.

This is *exactly* my point.

There is no way to distinguish a commit which was accidentally and
implicitly dangled due to checkout or submodule update on a detached
head, from all those other intentionally dangling refs which were
explicitly handled with merge, rebase, amend.

Ephemeral branches would change only the implicit discard.. Turning it
into a named branch and requiring an explicit discard.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to