On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > Duy Nguyen <pclo...@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 4:46 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: >>> Christian Couder <christian.cou...@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> So what should we do if freshen_file() returns 0 which means that the >>>> freshening failed? >>> >>> You tell me ;-) as you are the one who is proposing this feature. >> >> My answer is, we are not worse than freshening loose objects case >> (especially since I took the idea from there). > > I do not think so, unfortunately. Loose object files with stale > timestamps are not removed as long as objects are still reachable.
But there are plenty of unreachable loose objects, added in index, then got replaced with new versions. cache-tree can create loose trees too and it's been run more often, behind user's back, to take advantage of the shortcut in unpack-trees. > For the base/shared index file, the timestamp is the only thing that > protects them from pruning, unless it is serving as the base file > for the currently active $GIT_DIR/index that is split. -- Duy
