On Friday 20 July 2007, David Kastrup wrote: > Johan Herland <johan@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > My point is fundamentally that selectively tracking directories is a > > more powerful concept than just tracking _all_ directories by > > default. > > Perhaps you might read up on some of the past discussion before > beating dead horses. This has been covered already, and more than > once. I never asked for "all directories" to be tracked. I outlined > cases where they are tracked and where not, and I tested that the > mechanisms in "man gitignore" already work _perfectly_ with the > pattern "." for configuring the _implied_ tracking at directory, > repository, project, and user preference level. It seems our discussion is based on so many misunderstandings of each other that it's not very useful to reply to specific parts of it. AFAICS, from a high-level POV, we're pretty much in agreement on the following points: 1. Git should be able to track directories. 2. Tracked directories should be kept alive, even if empty. 3. Git must not necessarily track _all_ directories. Conversely, we seem to disagree on these points: 4. Whether or not git should track directories by default. You say yes, I say no. 5. How the tracking of directories should be implemented in git's object database. I want to keep the index/tree as-is except for adding directory entries (w/mode 040000) for the tracked directories only. You seem to want to add directory entries for _all_ directories and then additional "." entries for directories you don't want deleted if/when empty. Am I making sense, or have I misunderstood our misunderstandings? ...Johan -- Johan Herland, <johan@xxxxxxxxxxx> www.herland.net - 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
