| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Caution when removing git branches |
| Date: | 2011-01-27 17:14:18 |
| Message-ID: | 4D41538A0200002500039EA0@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> OK, someone removes a branch.
As was explained earlier on this thread, it's not gone at that
point; it's a dangling reference. I think that unless someone
explicitly "prunes" the dangling references, they are left around
for a week, and can easily be checked out again.
> If it is still in his local tree, he can push it back. If not, he
> has to go around and find someone who does have it, and who has
> the most recent copy?
If it actually is gone from the server, you can fall back to this,
yeah.
> Can master be removed too?
I don't think so.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-01-27 17:14:41 | Re: Caution when removing git branches |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2011-01-27 17:14:02 | Re: Caution when removing git branches |