On Monday, March 5, 2007 at 23:56:02 (+0100) Johannes Schindelin writes: >... >It may not be infeasible. > >But it is wrong. It "fixes" a totallc clear idiom, ... A very valid point. I dislike breaking clear idioms also. >> the timestamp for that file on that branch would be invalidated, and the >> file would get whatever timestamp it got when it was written to disk. > >This approach is so fragile! It is invasive, easy to get wrong (count the >ways how to invalidate the timestamp), and serves only an obscure use >case, which is better solved otherwise to begin with. More very valid points. >> >So stop even asking for this. We'd have to be totally and utterly >> >incompetent to do what you ask for. We're simply not that stupid. > >FWIW I have to agree here. I saw quite a few projects go wrong, because >management insisted on abolishing a perfectly good design, just because >they had this pet idea. This is not my "pet idea". I could care less about it: I have other alternatives. I was just engaging in what I hoped would be a friendly exchange about this, but it seems to have touched a nerve, and then invective with unsubtle charges of STUPID was loaded into the catapult and flung across the sea ... I loathe politics getting in the way of something clean, robust, and useful. I would be the last to advocate it: besides were I really convinced that git MUST have this or die, I would try to write it myself --- I was just hoping for an argument showing why it was such a lame-brained idea from a logical, not implementation, standpoint. Thanks again for your time. Bill - 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