From c647e12c92fe635e07734946e815db41ec44ddfd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: blipvert Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 01:45:13 +0000 Subject: --- doc/bugs/git.pm_should_prune_remote_branches_when_fetching.mdwn | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/doc/bugs/git.pm_should_prune_remote_branches_when_fetching.mdwn b/doc/bugs/git.pm_should_prune_remote_branches_when_fetching.mdwn index 5b7be1187..4c1e461e3 100644 --- a/doc/bugs/git.pm_should_prune_remote_branches_when_fetching.mdwn +++ b/doc/bugs/git.pm_should_prune_remote_branches_when_fetching.mdwn @@ -8,4 +8,4 @@ Pruning remote branches can be done automatically with the --prune option to "gi > work to the current git commands it uses. I don't see any errors here > from obsolete remote branches. --[[Joey]] -Suppose a remote repository contains a branch named "foo", and you fetch from it. Then, someone renames that branch to "foo/bar". The next time you fetch from that repository, you will get an error because the obsolete branch "foo" is blocking the branch "foo/bar" from being created (due to the way git stores refs for branches). Pruning gets around the problem. It doesn't really add much overhead to the fetch, and in fact it can *save* overhead since obsolete branches do consume resource (any commits they point to cannot be garbage collected). +Suppose a remote repository contains a branch named "foo", and you fetch from it. Then, someone renames that branch to "foo/bar". The next time you fetch from that repository, you will get an error because the obsolete branch "foo" is blocking the branch "foo/bar" from being created (due to the way git stores refs for branches). Pruning gets around the problem. It doesn't really add much overhead to the fetch, and in fact it can *save* overhead since obsolete branches do consume resource (any commits they point to cannot be garbage collected). --[[blipvert]] -- cgit v1.2.3