From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: non-empty index with git commit -a Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 14:59:31 -0500 Message-ID: <20110216195931.GA22884@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20110216032047.GA2858@elie> <20110216085114.GA9413@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20110216095415.GA12578@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20110216100622.GA12971@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vpqqrke30.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20110216193643.GB22045@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7v1v37kb3p.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Sverre Rabbelier , Jonathan Nieder , Git List , Jakub Narebski To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Feb 16 21:00:21 2011 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 1PpnXr-0005I4-5D for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 21:00:15 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754221Ab1BPT7x (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Feb 2011 14:59:53 -0500 Received: from xen6.gtisc.gatech.edu ([143.215.130.70]:45152 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754018Ab1BPT7e (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Feb 2011 14:59:34 -0500 Received: (qmail 13512 invoked by uid 111); 16 Feb 2011 19:59:33 -0000 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (99.108.226.0) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with ESMTPA; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 19:59:33 +0000 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 16 Feb 2011 14:59:31 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7v1v37kb3p.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 11:55:54AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > But as I said, I am not against a config option if it is such a common > > problem. I certainly would not turn it on. And I don't think it should > > be on by default. > > I think we are pretty much on the same page, except that I am not very > interested in the index-log either. To be fair, I am not sure I am that interested in the index-log either. I just see it as a superior solution to the same problem, but I don't consider it a very important problem. So I think we are really on the same page. :) -Peff