On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 22:02 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I didn't like the way I explained the cache-tree entry order. Was it > understandable? > > I am wondering if an illustration with an example might be in order. I > think anybody halfway intelligent may be able to get a fuzzy idea of what > is going on by looking at the output from test-dump-cache-tree after > "reset --hard && write-tree" and then by comparing it with the output from > test-dump-cache-tree after running ">t/something && git add t/something" > (which invalidates the top-level tree and t/ subtree). But a well written > documentation should be able to help clarifying the idea obtainable that > way. I don't think what I wrote in the previous message is sufficient > even for that (i.e. comparing the two output would give you better > explanation of what is going on than what I wrote--iow, what I wrote may > not be very useful for people who are motivated to learn). Perhaps I'll be able to put some time into reading the work you guys are doing.... I can definitely put the "newbie goggles" on if I do. -- -Drew Northup ________________________________________________ "As opposed to vegetable or mineral error?" -John Pescatore, SANS NewsBites Vol. 12 Num. 59 -- 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