Re: bug in git-fsck-cache?

2005-08-31 Thread Junio C Hamano
Stephen Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Stephen Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > The commit c594adad5653491813959277fb87a2fef54c4e05 is shown as >> > "connected" (in Linus' tree, not one of my patches) by gitk, so I am happy >> > that git prune did not get rid of it, but why d

Re: bug in git-fsck-cache?

2005-08-31 Thread Stephen Rothwell
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:13:56 -0700 Junio C Hamano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Stephen Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The commit c594adad5653491813959277fb87a2fef54c4e05 is shown as > > "connected" (in Linus' tree, not one of my patches) by gitk, so I am happy > > that git prune did

Re: bug in git-fsck-cache?

2005-08-31 Thread Junio C Hamano
Stephen Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The commit c594adad5653491813959277fb87a2fef54c4e05 is shown as > "connected" (in Linus' tree, not one of my patches) by gitk, so I am happy > that git prune did not get rid of it, but why does fsck-cache report it as > dangling? Hmph. You ran fsck-