On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 05:31:30PM CET, Linus Torvalds wrote: > git didn't end up doing that (and I'm personally pretty happy about it), > but it was one of the things I was kind of thinking about: a "git import" > kind of thing would have created an initial commit which was pre-populated > with the thing to import, and a "git init-db" would have created an > initial root commit that was empty. > > That would have made the current "don't show the root diff" behaviour very > natural (and you'd still have gotten the initial diff for a new project), > but on the other hand, it would have had that annoying unnecessary "init" > commit, and you'd _still_ have wanted to have something like "--root" in > order to show the import commit as a patch (which you _sometimes_ want to > do). It's being asked by users time by time (first in April last year ;) and I'm not sure about any good answer I should tell them, so is the reason for not doing the implicit empty commit that it would be "annoying" I suppose in the log output? Is that a reason good enough? It would solve some of these annoying corner cases nicely, and you can still hide this empty commit from log output etc. -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/ The meaning of Stonehenge in Traflamadorian, when viewed from above, is: "Replacement part being rushed with all possible speed." -- Kurt Vonnegut, Sirens from Titan - 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