22e9f445ab
Turned out I had already done all the work needed to support this when unused started checking all branches.
17 lines
1.1 KiB
Markdown
17 lines
1.1 KiB
Markdown
What is says on the tin:
|
|
|
|
22:56:54 < RichiH> joeyh_: by the way, i have been thinking about fsck on bare repos
|
|
22:57:37 < RichiH> joeyh_: the best i could come with is to have a bare and a non-bare access the same repo store
|
|
22:58:00 < RichiH> joeyh_: alternatively, with the SHA* backend, you have all the information to verify that the local data is correct
|
|
22:58:41 < RichiH> and verifying that would already be a plus. if there really _is_ a problem, having the SHA is enough to track issues down
|
|
23:09:50 < joeyh_> oh, I think I have code that fsck could use on bare repos already.. just a matter of wiring it up
|
|
23:10:42 < joeyh_> feel free to reopen a bug or whatever so I remember.. the unused command's branch content enumeration could be used in a bare repo
|
|
23:14:51 < joeyh_> unused/dropunused could work in bare repos too btw
|
|
|
|
> Also `status`'s total annex keys/size could be handled for bare repos. --[[Joey]]
|
|
|
|
>> Fsck is done. Rest not done yet. --[[Joey]]
|
|
|
|
>>> all [[done]]! --[[Joey]]
|
|
|
|
[[!meta title="support unused, dropunused in bare repos"]]
|