From 84fd6ef1576cf431d3a41867276cbead7ec277b2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joey Hess Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 10:53:52 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] comment --- ..._e78552e939891b950a8352e4e3bdff92._comment | 22 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/forum/Dead_repo_content_is_not_considered_unused./comment_1_e78552e939891b950a8352e4e3bdff92._comment diff --git a/doc/forum/Dead_repo_content_is_not_considered_unused./comment_1_e78552e939891b950a8352e4e3bdff92._comment b/doc/forum/Dead_repo_content_is_not_considered_unused./comment_1_e78552e939891b950a8352e4e3bdff92._comment new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..ec066be266 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/forum/Dead_repo_content_is_not_considered_unused./comment_1_e78552e939891b950a8352e4e3bdff92._comment @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ +[[!comment format=mdwn + username="joey" + subject="""comment 1""" + date="2020-06-30T14:45:06Z" + content=""" +A file is not considered unused until there are no git branches that still +refer to that file. + +When you delete the symlink in step 5, you don't say +you commit it, so the master branch still refers to the file; it's not +unused. + +Also, you have A as a remote of B still. So git still has a tracking +branch, remotes/A/master, that still contains the file. So the file +is still considered in use because of that. + +I think you'll probably also have a synced/master branch that contains +the file too, at least until you sync with some other repository, or delete +the branch. Arguably that's an implementation detail of git-annex and perhaps +it should not consider those branches when checking for branches +that contain a file. +"""]]