Duy Nguyen <pclo...@gmail.com> writes: > 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.
I am not sure if I follow. Aren't objects reachable from the cache-tree in the index protected from gc? Not that I think freshening would actually fail in a repository where you can actually write into to update the index or its refs to make a difference (iow, even if we make it die() loudly when shared index cannot be "touched" because we are paranoid, no real life usage will trigger that die(), and if a repository does trigger the die(), I think you would really want to know about it).
