From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Catalin Marinas Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Reorganize read-tree Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:15:12 +0100 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Aug 31 16:20:43 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EATRS-0007KX-Qx for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:19:55 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964812AbVHaOTt (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:19:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932516AbVHaOTt (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:19:49 -0400 Received: from cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com ([193.131.176.58]:59344 "EHLO cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932515AbVHaOTt (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:19:49 -0400 Received: from cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com (cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.127.39]) by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j7VEJCQb017661; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:19:12 +0100 (BST) Received: from ZIPPY.Emea.Arm.com (cam-exch2.emea.arm.com [10.1.255.58]) by cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA15329; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:19:10 +0100 (BST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([10.1.69.140]) by ZIPPY.Emea.Arm.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:15:12 +0100 To: Daniel Barkalow In-Reply-To: (Daniel Barkalow's message of "Tue, 30 Aug 2005 23:48:27 -0400 (EDT)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Aug 2005 14:15:12.0964 (UTC) FILETIME=[6702F040:01C5AE36] Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Daniel Barkalow wrote: > I got mostly done with this before Linus mentioned the possibility of > having multiple index entries in the same stage for a single path. I > finished it anyway, but I'm not sure that we won't want to know which of > the common ancestors contributed which, and, if some of them don't have a > path, we wouldn't be able to tell. I don't have time to look at the patch and I don't have a good knowledge of the GIT internals, so I will just ask. Does this patch changes the call convention for git-merge-one-file-script? I have my own script for StGIT and I would need to know whether it is affected or not. Thanks. -- Catalin