From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Add [] as an alias for a reference to the empty tree Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 05:20:54 -0400 Message-ID: <20100510092054.GA2602@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <1273250247-20762-1-git-send-email-pkj@axis.com> <20100508045319.GD14998@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7vhbmjc6dy.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , "git@vger.kernel.org" To: Peter Kjellerstedt X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon May 10 11:21:02 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OBPAb-0006Wa-R2 for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 10 May 2010 11:21:02 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755585Ab0EJJU4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 May 2010 05:20:56 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:52530 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752770Ab0EJJU4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 May 2010 05:20:56 -0400 Received: (qmail 2848 invoked by uid 107); 10 May 2010 09:21:11 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Mon, 10 May 2010 05:21:11 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 10 May 2010 05:20:54 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 10:14:15AM +0200, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote: > However, if INDEX, WORKTREE and EMPTY are preferred as syntactic sugar > tokes, then that is fine by me. Unfortunately, I do not have the time > nor the knowledge needed to add support for the INDEX and WORKTREE > tokens, so I am afraid I will have to leave this as a suggestion for > the future. Implementing INDEX and WORKTREE would be quite challenging. EMPTY is easy because it is really just a fake ref for a particular sha1. The others need special casing everywhere that might look at the result. So certainly if you want to do EMPTY, I wouldn't let the lack of the other two hold you back. The only reason they are related at all is that they would probably share a syntax, if the other two ever even get implemented. -Peff