David Kastrup wrote:
Otherwise you could have two very different trees that encode the
same *content* (just with different ways of getting there -
depending on whether you have a history with empty trees or not),
and that's very much against the philosophy of git, and breaks some
fundamental rules (like the fact that "same content == same SHA1").
No, the content is _different_. One tree contains a tracked
directory, the other does not. That means that the trees behave
_differently_ when you manipulate them, and that means that they are
_not_ the same tree.
You are mistaking things. Like the executable bit on a file is not content, the fact that a directory should be kept despite being empty is also an *attribute* of the directory. This is meta-data, not actual data (content). So no matter how elegant tracking the "." entry might be (and I think it is, because it covers a lot of corner cases already), it puts the information at the wrong place.
That's sad, because otherwise it would be really elegant.
cheers
simon
--
Serve - BSD +++ RENT this banner advert +++ ASCII Ribbon /"\
Work - Mac +++ space for low €€€ NOW!1 +++ Campaign \ /
Party Enjoy Relax | http://dragonflybsd.org Against HTML \
Dude 2c 2 the max ! http://golden-apple.biz Mail + News / \
-
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
