Re: Git Stability

[Curt Sampson <cjs%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On 2010-01-13 21:34 +0100 (Wed), S.P.Zeidler wrote:

> http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-repository/2010/01/11/msg000227.html
> http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-repository/2009/10/18/msg000132.html

I see. As I suspected, the corruption is due to the process of running
the CVS-to-Git conversion update process. This is not something we'd
be doing if we switched to git (after the initial conversion), so the
stability (or lack thereof) of that process over time is not an issue.

> > So I'm mystified by your comment that you lose the git repo if the
> > "index" is corrupted.
> 
> -an- index.
> How would you describe the function of the files in refs/heads if not
> as an index (specifically, to the head of the respective branch)?

When talking about Git, where "index" has a very common meaning entirely
unrelated to the above, I would say that "the refs are being corrupted"
or "the files under refs/heads are being corrupted."

"index files" is actually longer than "refs", and yet manages to obscure
more information.

I think we'd all get along a little better in this conversation if you'd
be a little more explicit about what you're talking about. I'm not
saying go into long winded explanations of things; I'm just saying use
precise terms such as "the files under refs/heads" rather vague terms
such as "index files [of some sort, somewhere in the git repo]".

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson         <cjs%cynic.net@localhost>         +81 90 7737 2974
             http://www.starling-software.com
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism
by those who have not got it.    --George Bernard Shaw