Re: [RFC PATCH] Re: Empty directories...
Show 10 quoted lines
>> Otherwise you could have two very different trees that encode the
>> same *content* (just with different ways of getting there -
>> depending on whether you have a history with empty trees or not),
>> and that's very much against the philosophy of git, and breaks some
>> fundamental rules (like the fact that "same content == same SHA1").
>
> No, the content is _different_. One tree contains a tracked
> directory, the other does not. That means that the trees behave
> _differently_ when you manipulate them, and that means that they are
> _not_ the same tree.
You are mistaking things. Like the executable bit on a file is not content, the fact that a directory should be kept despite being empty is also an *attribute* of the directory. This is meta-data, not actual data (content). So no matter how elegant tracking the "." entry might be (and I think it is, because it covers a lot of corner cases already), it puts the information at the wrong place.
That's sad, because otherwise it would be really elegant.
cheers
simon
--
Serve - BSD +++ RENT this banner advert +++ ASCII Ribbon /"\
Work - Mac +++ space for low €€€ NOW!1 +++ Campaign \ /
Party Enjoy Relax | http://dragonflybsd.org Against HTML \
Dude 2c 2 the max ! http://golden-apple.biz Mail + News / \
Simon 'corecode' Schubert <corecode@fs.ei.tum.de>