Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Sun, 5 Aug 2007, David Kastrup wrote: [...] >> > That said, if we really wanted to get it right, we should do this as >> > a three-phase thing: (1) remove old files (2) create new files (3) >> > for all removals and renames, try to remove source directories that >> > might have become empty. >> > >> > That would fix it properly and for all cases. >> >> Stupid question from someone without good background: why do we need >> two passes in the first place? > > For example, a patch that removes a directory structure "x/..." and then > creates a file "x" in its place. > > In order for the patch ordering to not matter, you want to do the > "remove old state" in an earlier phase. But your proposed three passes won't work with a patch removing "x/..." and creating "x" in its place, since "x/" gets only removed in pass 3, and "x" needs to created in pass 2 already. If you had bothered reading my mail to the end: I explained exactly that. So your three pass scheme actually breaks the case for which the two-pass scheme has been designed. I propose you read my previous mail to its end: I explain a scheme that will work in this case, but it would, as far as I understand index processing, necessitate changing the index sort order, basically having -depth order for deletion entries. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum - 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
