From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:42:26 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] hard-code the empty tree object
Message-ID: <7vhcgaglq5.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20080215172043.GA24221@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> By "it" I assume you mean "the sha1 of the empty tree", meaning to not
> include the {} bit at all?

Yes, that's what I meant.

> I am fine with that, as I don't think anyone has even mentioned a
> workflow where such a shorthand would be beneficial to users. The only
> one I can think of is to represent some tree using diff tools (e.g., "git
> diff --stat {} HEAD" instead of some variant on ls-files), but I have
> never once actually wanted to do that.

Likewise.

> Should I re-send, or do you want to just markup the existing patches?

Shouldn't the previous one that uses the hardcoded empty tree
object name good enough that is already on 'pu'?