Re: Re: more git updates..

David Eger
2005-04-12T22:38:42Z

On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 02:21:58PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Yes. A tree is defined by the blobs it references (and the subtrees) but
> it doesn't _contain_ them. It just contains a pointer to them.

A pointer to them? You mean a SHA1 hash of them? or what?
Where is the *real* data stored? The real files, the real patches?
Are these somewhere completely outside of git?

> > Therefore, "TREE" must be the *full* data, and since we have the following
> > definition for CHANGESET:
>
> No. A tree is not the full data. A tree contains enough information to
> _recreate_ the full data, but the tree itself just tells you _how_ to do
> that. It doesn't contain very much of the data itself at all.

Perhaps I'd understand this if you tell me what "recreate" means.
If a have a SHA1 hash of a file, and I have the file, I can verify that said
file has the SHA1 hash it's supposed to have, but I can't generate the file
from it's hash...

Sorry for being stubbornly dumb, but you'll have a couple of us puzzling
at the README ;-)

-dte