From: Simon 'corecode' Schubert Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 09:27:34 GMT Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Re: Empty directories... Message-ID: <46A08006.4020500@fs.ei.tum.de> In-Reply-To: <85644fvdrn.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> David Kastrup wrote: >> 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 / \