Re: [PATCH] cache-tree: do not cache empty trees

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 3:48 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Perhaps it's not a good approach after all. What I wanted was to make
>> pre-1.8.0 tolerate empty trees created by 1.8.0. Perhaps it's better
>> to just let pre-1.8.0 refuse to work with empty trees, forcing users
>> to upgrade to 1.8.0?
>
> I don't think we saw even something remotely resembles an agreement that
> empty tree is a good thing to have yet. ÂWhy are you rushing things?

But empty trees are allowed in repo since 79b1138 (fsck.c: fix bogus
"empty tree" check). Index can't handle empty trees, so it's a bug to
me that index still accepts them as input and silently discard them. A
bug regardless directory tracking support in 1.8.0. A corner case that
nobody would likely encounter (except Ilari and his "ghost directory"
problem).
-- 
Duy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]