From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-mktree: reverse of git-ls-tree. Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:00:30 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: References: <7vk6bp43qm.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <1140504750.16926.111.camel@evo.keithp.com> <1140543982.16926.145.camel@evo.keithp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Junio C Hamano , Tommi Virtanen , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Feb 21 19:01:15 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FBbol-0003gy-HQ for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:00:55 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932345AbWBUSAx (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:00:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932387AbWBUSAx (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:00:53 -0500 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:65499 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932345AbWBUSAw (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:00:52 -0500 Received: from shell0.pdx.osdl.net (fw.osdl.org [65.172.181.6]) by smtp.osdl.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k1LI0cDZ031973 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:00:39 -0800 Received: from localhost (shell0.pdx.osdl.net [10.9.0.31]) by shell0.pdx.osdl.net (8.13.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k1LI0Ubs028245; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:00:34 -0800 To: Keith Packard In-Reply-To: <1140543982.16926.145.camel@evo.keithp.com> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3 required=5 tests=PATCH_SUBJECT_OSDL X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63-osdl_revision__1.68__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.129 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.36 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, Keith Packard wrote: > > Yes, all three are equivalent, my only point was that '(c)' is > meaningless. Which, as I noted is just pedantry. Pedantry is fine on a mailing list. But meaningless pedantry in a lawyer is bad. My point was that your _lawyers_ are bad. Tell them to concentrate on something that matters. Linus