Re: [PATCH] doc: technical details about the index file format

From: Drew Northup <drew.northup@maine.edu>
Date: Mar 2, 2011, 12:53 UTC
Message-ID: <1299070416.17973.29.camel@drew-northup.unet.maine.edu>
In-Reply-To: <7voc5ucb6b.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 22:02 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 14 quoted lines

> I didn't like the way I explained the cache-tree entry order.  Was it
> understandable?
> 
> I am wondering if an illustration with an example might be in order.  I
> think anybody halfway intelligent may be able to get a fuzzy idea of what
> is going on by looking at the output from test-dump-cache-tree after
> "reset --hard && write-tree" and then by comparing it with the output from
> test-dump-cache-tree after running ">t/something && git add t/something"
> (which invalidates the top-level tree and t/ subtree). But a well written
> documentation should be able to help clarifying the idea obtainable that
> way.  I don't think what I wrote in the previous message is sufficient
> even for that (i.e. comparing the two output would give you better
> explanation of what is going on than what I wrote--iow, what I wrote may
> not be very useful for people who are motivated to learn).

Perhaps I'll be able to put some time into reading the work you guys are doing.... I can definitely put the "newbie goggles" on if I do.

-- 
-Drew Northup
________________________________________________
"As opposed to vegetable or mineral error?"
-John Pescatore, SANS NewsBites Vol. 12 Num. 59