From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Carl Baldwin Subject: Re: Add an empty directory? Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 14:10:26 -0600 Organization: Hewlett Packard Message-ID: <20050813201026.GA21096@hpsvcnb.fc.hp.com> References: <20050813173043.GA25013@hpsvcnb.fc.hp.com> <20050813180008.GJ5608@pasky.ji.cz> <20050813181945.GA2191@hpsvcnb.fc.hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Carl Baldwin , Petr Baudis , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Aug 13 22:11:45 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E42L2-0001Zb-Db for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sat, 13 Aug 2005 22:10:40 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932277AbVHMUK1 (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Aug 2005 16:10:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932280AbVHMUK1 (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Aug 2005 16:10:27 -0400 Received: from atlrel8.hp.com ([156.153.255.206]:12174 "EHLO atlrel8.hp.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932277AbVHMUK1 (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Aug 2005 16:10:27 -0400 Received: from smtp1.fc.hp.com (smtp.fc.hp.com [15.11.136.119]) by atlrel8.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 637733C9; Sat, 13 Aug 2005 16:10:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hpsvcnb.fc.hp.com (hpsvcnb.fc.hp.com [15.6.94.42]) by smtp1.fc.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BAC93A25F; Sat, 13 Aug 2005 20:10:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by hpsvcnb.fc.hp.com (Postfix, from userid 21523) id 0E4DC2AF0F; Sat, 13 Aug 2005 14:10:26 -0600 (MDT) To: Linus Torvalds Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Origin: hpescnb.fc.hp.com User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 12:41:45PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Sat, 13 Aug 2005, Carl Baldwin wrote: > > > > The bottom line is that I don't really see many situations where it is > > absolutely necessary but it is a convenience. Not supporting it may > > seem like an artificial limit that really didn't need to be there. > > Well, there is an argument for not supporting it, namely that the way > patches work, traditionally a directory that became empty is deleted > (because patches have no way of saying "remove directory" or "create > directory"). > > So a system where the existence of a directory flows from the existence of > the files within the directory will automatically always do the right > thing with patches floating around. I see your point here. However, if git supported it then any particular usage model on top of git could choose to do it either way. If it doesn't then that flexibility is not there. > Which is a big deal for me, since most of the kernel development still > ends up being done with patches. Yes, we merge things with git, but a lot > of the development is about passing patches around for review and > commentary. > > And the thing is, you can always create the directory in your workspace. > Git won't care, and won't know about it, but there's really no downside to > it. > > Linus > -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Carl Baldwin Systems VLSI Laboratory Hewlett Packard Company MS 88 work: 970 898-1523 3404 E. Harmony Rd. work: Carl.N.Baldwin@hp.com Fort Collins, CO 80525 home: Carl@ecBaldwin.net - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -