Documentation / howto / dangling-objects.txton commit Create a sysconfdir variable, and use it for ETC_GITCONFIG (b51b8bb)
   1From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
   2Subject: Re: Question about fsck-objects output
   3Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 12:01:06 -0800 (PST)
   4Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701251144290.25027@woody.linux-foundation.org>
   5Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/37754>
   6Abstract: Linus describes what dangling objects are, when they
   7 are left behind, and how to view their relationship with branch
   8 heads in gitk
   9
  10On Thu, 25 Jan 2007, Larry Streepy wrote:
  11
  12> Sorry to ask such a basic question, but I can't quite decipher the output of
  13> fsck-objects.  When I run it, I get this:
  14>
  15>  git fsck-objects
  16> dangling commit 2213f6d4dd39ca8baebd0427723723e63208521b
  17> dangling commit f0d4e00196bd5ee54463e9ea7a0f0e8303da767f
  18> dangling blob 6a6d0b01b3e96d49a8f2c7addd4ef8c3bd1f5761
  19>
  20>
  21> Even after a "repack -a -d" they still exist.  The man page has a short
  22> explanation, but, at least for me, it wasn't fully enlightening. :-)
  23>
  24> The man page says that dangling commits could be "root" commits, but since my
  25> repo started as a clone of another repo, I don't see how I could have any root
  26> commits.  Also, the page doesn't really describe what a dangling blob is.
  27>
  28> So, can someone explain what these artifacts are and if they are a problem
  29> that I should be worried about?
  30
  31The most common situation is that you've rebased a branch (or you have
  32pulled from somebody else who rebased a branch, like the "pu" branch in
  33the git.git archive itself).
  34
  35What happens is that the old head of the original branch still exists, as
  36does obviously everything it pointed to. The branch pointer itself just
  37doesn't, since you replaced it with another one.
  38
  39However, there are certainly other situations too that cause dangling
  40objects. For example, the "dangling blob" situation you have tends to be
  41because you did a "git add" of a file, but then, before you actually
  42committed it and made it part of the bigger picture, you changed something
  43else in that file and committed that *updated* thing - the old state that
  44you added originally ends up not being pointed to by any commit/tree, so
  45it's now a dangling blob object.
  46
  47Similarly, when the "recursive" merge strategy runs, and finds that there
  48are criss-cross merges and thus more than one merge base (which is fairly
  49unusual, but it does happen), it will generate one temporary midway tree
  50(or possibly even more, if you had lots of criss-crossing merges and
  51more than two merge bases) as a temporary internal merge base, and again,
  52those are real objects, but the end result will not end up pointing to
  53them, so they end up "dangling" in your repository.
  54
  55Generally, dangling objects aren't anything to worry about. They can even
  56be very useful: if you screw something up, the dangling objects can be how
  57you recover your old tree (say, you did a rebase, and realized that you
  58really didn't want to - you can look at what dangling objects you have,
  59and decide to reset your head to some old dangling state).
  60
  61For commits, the most useful thing to do with dangling objects tends to be
  62to do a simple
  63
  64        gitk <dangling-commit-sha-goes-here> --not --all
  65
  66which means exactly what it sounds like: it says that you want to see the
  67commit history that is described by the dangling commit(s), but you do NOT
  68want to see the history that is described by all your branches and tags
  69(which are the things you normally reach). That basically shows you in a
  70nice way what the danglign commit was (and notice that it might not be
  71just one commit: we only report the "tip of the line" as being dangling,
  72but there might be a whole deep and complex commit history that has gotten
  73dropped - rebasing will do that).
  74
  75For blobs and trees, you can't do the same, but you can examine them. You
  76can just do
  77
  78        git show <dangling-blob/tree-sha-goes-here>
  79
  80to show what the contents of the blob were (or, for a tree, basically what
  81the "ls" for that directory was), and that may give you some idea of what
  82the operation was that left that dangling object.
  83
  84Usually, dangling blobs and trees aren't very interesting. They're almost
  85always the result of either being a half-way mergebase (the blob will
  86often even have the conflict markers from a merge in it, if you have had
  87conflicting merges that you fixed up by hand), or simply because you
  88interrupted a "git fetch" with ^C or something like that, leaving _some_
  89of the new objects in the object database, but just dangling and useless.
  90
  91Anyway, once you are sure that you're not interested in any dangling
  92state, you can just prune all unreachable objects:
  93
  94        git prune
  95
  96and they'll be gone. But you should only run "git prune" on a quiescent
  97repository - it's kind of like doing a filesystem fsck recovery: you don't
  98want to do that while the filesystem is mounted.
  99
 100(The same is true of "git-fsck-objects" itself, btw - but since
 101git-fsck-objects never actually *changes* the repository, it just reports
 102on what it found, git-fsck-objects itself is never "dangerous" to run.
 103Running it while somebody is actually changing the repository can cause
 104confusing and scary messages, but it won't actually do anything bad. In
 105contrast, running "git prune" while somebody is actively changing the
 106repository is a *BAD* idea).
 107
 108                        Linus
 109