Re: Issues with higher-order stages in dircache

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Date: Apr 17, 2005, 05:31 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0504162228300.7211@ppc970.osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <7v64ym2dju.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> 
> I am wondering if you have a particular reason not to do the
> same for the removing half.

No. Except for me being silly.

Please just make it so.

Show 6 quoted lines

> Also do you have any comments on this one from the same message?
> 
>  * read-tree
> 
>    - When merging two trees, i.e. "read-tree -m A B", shouldn't
>      we collapse identical stage-1/2 into stage-0?

How do you actually intend to merge two trees?

That sounds like a total special case, and better done with "diff-tree". But regardless, since I assume the result is the later tree, why do a "read-tree -m A B", since what you really want is "read-tree B"?

The real merge always needs the base tree, and I'd hate to complicate the real merge with some special-case that isn't relevant for that real case.

		Linus