From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-commit --allow-empty Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 10:16:10 -0800 Message-ID: <7vhciziqz9.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <4751A0FB.6090705@gmail.com> <7vd4tq41zt.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7v63zgkw0x.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Mark Drago , stelian@popies.net, git@vger.kernel.org To: Nicolas Pitre X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Dec 03 19:16:39 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IzFqP-00078U-Qy for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:16:38 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751437AbXLCSQR (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:16:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751358AbXLCSQR (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:16:17 -0500 Received: from sceptre.pobox.com ([207.106.133.20]:34408 "EHLO sceptre.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751324AbXLCSQR (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:16:17 -0500 Received: from sceptre (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sceptre.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6151D2EF; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:16:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sceptre.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCAD09B94E; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:16:33 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Nicolas Pitre's message of "Mon, 03 Dec 2007 12:58:29 -0500 (EST)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Nicolas Pitre writes: > On Mon, 3 Dec 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> +--allow-empty:: >> + Usually recording a commit that has the exact same tree as its >> + sole parent commit and the command prevents you from making such >> + a mistake. This option bypasses the safety, and is primarily >> + for use by foreign scm interface scripts. > > The first sentence is rather buggy I would say. It indeed is. Sorry.