Re: Empty directories...

> Johan Herland <johan@herland.net> writes:
> 
> > AFAICS, from a high-level POV, we're pretty much in agreement on the
> > following points:
> >
> > 1. Git should be able to track directories.
> >
> > 2. Tracked directories should be kept alive, even if empty.
> >
> > 3. Git must not necessarily track _all_ directories.
> >
> >
> > Conversely, we seem to disagree on these points:
> >
> > 4. Whether or not git should track directories by default. You say
> > yes, I say no.
> 
> Element of least surprise.  But since my proposal allows easy and
> intuitive declaration of the preference at user, project, and
> directory level without one choice messing with the choice of other
> projects and contributors with mixed preferences, this is quite
> unimportant.
> 
> We are in agreement that adding or removing the tracking explicitly
> for a single directory might be useful to have.  But it can't be the
> only way.

> > 5. How the tracking of directories should be implemented in git's
> > object database. I want to keep the index/tree as-is except for
> > adding directory entries (w/mode 040000) for the tracked directories
> > only. You seem to want to add directory entries for _all_
> > directories and then additional "." entries for directories you
> > don't want deleted if/when empty.
> 
> No.  I don't want to change _anything_ for untracked directories.
> They are, as previously, implied by the contents and have a "tree"
> entry for efficiency reasons.  Nothing new here.
> 
> The directory mode entries are named "." and are for tracked
> directories only.

> > Am I making sense, or have I misunderstood our misunderstandings?
> 
> The latter.  You are violently arguing for what I outlined.  Which
> probably shows that I am not the best at explaining my ideas, and that
> it reflects badly upon them.