Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Sun, 10 Dec 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> That is fine by me. We would benefit from an empty blob and an >> empty tree. > > I was wondering if we ever had any special case where we wanted the empty > blob, and couldn't come up with any. After saying that I was thinking about the same. Empty blob is not all that useful (and let's not bring up the "empty commit" in this discussion pretty please). > In contrast, the empty tree clearly ends up being an interesting special > case that actually gets used occasionally, ie here we had two independent > uses for the same thing.. Two? I sent out a patch with comment about an issue I worry about. I do not think the empty-tree case matters in practice because we do not allow an empty tree to be committed, but if we add empty blob to the set of "well known objects", the backward compatibility issue becomes real. - 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