Re: Couple of read-tree questions
- From
Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
- Date
- Sep 1, 2005, 06:32 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vvf1l1env.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <Pine.LNX.4.63.0509010138370.23242@iabervon.org>
Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org> writes:
> (The thread you mention seems to say that we accept entries being missing > from the index as if they were unchanged, but I don't see a good reason > for this; you'd be dealing with the full set in the index for the merge, > even if you don't have a populated working tree)
You are correct. I was wondering myself why *both* of us thought (or Linus *seemed* to be agreeing, at least to me) what I was referring to as I+H made any sense while re-reaing the thread.
> I should have asked sooner, then. :) There's a bunch of clutter to get it > to work that I can remove if it's not actually necessary.
Yeah, removal of dead code! Go wild, please.