Re: [RFC PATCH] Re: Empty directories...

[Simon 'corecode' Schubert <corecode@fs.ei.tum.de>]

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   / \