Re: git-show --stat on first commit

[Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz>]

On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 05:31:30PM CET, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> git didn't end up doing that (and I'm personally pretty happy about it), 
> but it was one of the things I was kind of thinking about: a "git import" 
> kind of thing would have created an initial commit which was pre-populated 
> with the thing to import, and a "git init-db" would have created an 
> initial root commit that was empty.
> 
> That would have made the current "don't show the root diff" behaviour very 
> natural (and you'd still have gotten the initial diff for a new project), 
> but on the other hand, it would have had that annoying unnecessary "init" 
> commit, and you'd _still_ have wanted to have something like "--root" in 
> order to show the import commit as a patch (which you _sometimes_ want to 
> do).

It's being asked by users time by time (first in April last year ;) and
I'm not sure about any good answer I should tell them, so is the reason
for not doing the implicit empty commit that it would be "annoying" I
suppose in the log output?

Is that a reason good enough?

It would solve some of these annoying corner cases nicely, and you can
still hide this empty commit from log output etc.

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
The meaning of Stonehenge in Traflamadorian, when viewed from above, is:
"Replacement part being rushed with all possible speed."