Re: Importing from tarballs; add, rm, update-index?

On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 11:43:32AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

[For the readers conveniance I added the above mail below.]

Yes. I fully second Linus opinion. But I think there should be a difference in adding completly new content to the index (number of entries in the index grows) or replacing content in the index.

That's what I'm aiming for.

-Peter

?> ?> If the "create file; git add; edit file; git commit" confusion isn't ?> blisteringly obvious to the git maintainers then I think I have to ?> give up here. ?> ?> And this isn't just CVS-induced brain damage. ? ?I'm sorry, but you are wrong. ? ? It really _is_ CVS-induced brain damage, and I'm trying to teach you. You ? can give up, but that's really "refuse to see the damage that systems like ? RCS and CVS has done to the world" ? ? The fundamental brain damage that CVS (and RCS, and SVN, and just about ? anything else) has had is thinking that "filenames" (and sometimes this is ? "fixed" to be "file ID's") are somehow special, and a totally separate ? thing from "file contents". ? ? Really. It's a BUG. It's a deficiency in CVS and friends. And it's a ? deficiency that you have gotten so used to that you don't even see that ? it's simply obviously NOT TRUE. ? ? You _cannot_ have a filename without the contents of that filename. That ? whole concept doesn't make sense, except in the twisted AND WRONG mental ? model of "files have identities even without content". ? ? The whole point of git is that it is about "project state" and the history ? that binds those states together. People have kind of come to accept that, ? and a lot of people realize what it means, but I don't think you've really ? accepted what it means for something as simple as a "git add" command. ? ? Again, totally ignore the index. Imagine that it doesn't exist. Imagine ? that you never actually learnt about it, and that none of the ? documentation ever mentions it, and just ask yourself: ? ? "What does 'adding a file' really mean?" ? ? I mean _really_. It cannot be about the "filename", because a filename ? simply doesn't have any meaning alone. Remember what git is all about. ? ? No, when you do a "git add", YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT FILENAMES AT ALL. ? ? NOT EVEN CLOSE! ? ? No. Git is, and has always been, all about tracking project content. The ? fact that CVS is crap, and thinks that "filenames" are special (and this ? causes major problems when you do renames), and the fact that SVN is crap, ? and things that "file identities" are special (and this causes major ? problems when you split a file or when two files join) is very much about ? THEIR F*CKING IDIOTIC FUNDAMENTAL BRAINDAMAGE! ? ? So take five minutes to really think about that. Take an hour. Take a ? week. Ponder it. ? ? What does it mean to "add" something to a project? It has _nothing_ to do ? with "filenames". Yeah, the filename obviously exists, but it's not ? something that exists on its own. You add the ONLY thing that git tracks. ? ? You add CONTENT. ? ? When you do "git add file.c" you aren't adding a filename to the list of ? files that git knows about. Not even CLOSE. No. You are really adding ? _content_ to the project you are tracking. You haven't bound it to a ? commit yet, but it's there. It's there both conceptually, and very much in ? a real technical sense too (you've literally added the git object that ? that file describes to the object database - the "commit" and "tree" ? objects to tie it all together is just waiting to be added, but they ? really just expose it - the actual file object has already been created ? when you do "git add".) ? ? So yes, you very much ARE talking about CVS braindamage. The reason why ? ? git add file.c ? echo New line >> file.c ? git commit ? ? commits the _old_ content, is very much because git is ALL ABOUT THE ? CONTENT. It has _never_ been about filenames. And it _shouldn't_ be about ? filenames, because that would be BUGGY AND BROKEN. ? ? Sorry for shouting, but as long as you think "git add" adds a filename, ? you're just not getting it. And I think it's really sad that you don't ? even seem to understand that yes, this _is_ braindamage that has been ? forced upon you by decades of mental rape done by bad source control ? systems. ? ? Please. File identities are _bad_ in the SVN kind of setting. The CVS kind ? of "filename == file identity" is even _worse_, but it's still exactly the ? same disease. It's the disease of thinking that metadata is somehow ? "different" from real data, and that "files" have identities that are ? somehow separate from the data they contain. ? ? Face it, git is consistent, and if it acted the way you seem to expect it ? to act, it would actually be a BUG. Exactly because you cannot and MUST ? NOT think that "filename" is something that has meaning without "file ? content" (or "file type" and "file permissions" - they all go together). ? ? And notice? NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH 'INDEX'!! The ? explanation above is not "this is how the index works". It's a much more ? fundamnetal issue of getting the right mental model, where the only thing ? that matters is contents. ? ? So even without an index, "git add" should work the way it works, once you ? can just let go of the broken model that is CVS. ? ? Please. Join me, Luke. The power of the git side is stronger. I am your ? father. ? ? Linus