From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: possible bug in git apply? Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 12:20:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <7vvebuh8g8.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <85hcndj2b5.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <853ayxiznp.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii Cc: Junio C Hamano , david@lang.hm, git@vger.kernel.org, rob@landley.net To: David Kastrup X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Aug 05 21:22:17 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IHlg7-0000ti-MT for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sun, 05 Aug 2007 21:22:16 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753571AbXHETWL (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Aug 2007 15:22:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753287AbXHETWK (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Aug 2007 15:22:10 -0400 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:57101 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751789AbXHETWJ (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Aug 2007 15:22:09 -0400 Received: from imap1.linux-foundation.org (imap1.linux-foundation.org [207.189.120.55]) by smtp2.linux-foundation.org (8.13.5.20060308/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id l75JKsf4004381 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 5 Aug 2007 12:20:55 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by imap1.linux-foundation.org (8.13.5.20060308/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id l75JKm10022188; Sun, 5 Aug 2007 12:20:48 -0700 In-Reply-To: <853ayxiznp.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.719 required=5 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0-osdl_revision__1.20__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: lf$Revision: 1.184 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.53 on 207.189.120.14 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sun, 5 Aug 2007, David Kastrup wrote: > > But your proposed three passes won't work with a patch removing > "x/..." and creating "x" in its place, since "x/" gets only removed > in pass 3, and "x" needs to created in pass 2 already. Yes, I was wrong. The current two passes are the right thing to do, and we should just always remove empty directories (and my patch was fine: we can leave them alone if it's a pure "modify file in place", but that's really the only case). Linus