Re: Avoiding broken Gitweb links and deleted objects

Matt McClure [off-list ref] writes:

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

I think what I missed is that the same logic to ignore side branches
whose history gets cauterised with such an "ours" merge may apply to
an "ours" merge that people already make, but the latter may want to
take both histories into account.

So I guess it is not such a great idea.

The particular proposed implementation? Or the broader idea to save
loose commits more permanently? I'm still interested in a solution for
the latter.

Recording such an "otherwise should not be recorded as a merge" side
history as if it were "-s ours" merge is what I judged as "not a
great idea".

If you want to keep older commits, either you make sure you point at
them with some refs, or not prune the repository.  I do not think of
any other solution offhand.