Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 1:57 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Glen Choo <chooglen@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > This doesn't sound like a typical definition of 'emptiness' to me, but I >> > can accept it if others also find it compelling. IOW if your definition >> > of 'emptiness' is compelling enough, then I'll be convinced that there >> > is no mixing of concerns and there would be no objection. >> >> FWIW, I do not find it compelling. I can grant that it might be >> convenient, but I do not think it is a good idea to explain the >> reason why the directory is protected is because it is "not empty". > > Is the objection to my hand-wavy explanation? If so, point taken. The objection is against the definition of 'emptiness' Glen perceived in your explanation ;-) A directory is empty when there is no filesystem entity hangs below it. A process can have any directory as its cwd, even an empty one, but the presense of such a process does not make an empty directory suddenly non-empty. That is the objection. > However, I'm curious if you're also objecting to my commit message > and/or the patch as well. > > If your objection also includes my commit message, but not the patch, > would the following suit your taste better? : > > """ > remove_path() was added in 4a92d1bfb784 (Add remove_path: a function to > remove as much as possible of a path, 2008-09-27) to, as it says, remove > as much of a path as possible. Why remove as much as possible? Well, > at the time we probably would have said something like: > > * removing leading directories makes things feel tidy > * removing leading directories doesn't hurt anything so long as they > had no files in them. I think you meant trailing, but I do not think you need to say it twice---they say pretty much the same thing. We are removing as many directories that contain no files (i.e. non-directories) underneath to make things tidy, as such a directory serves no useful purpose. I am not saying that an empty directory should not be protected even when the current process sits there. I just do not think it is a good idea to call the protection "we protect a non-empty directory". It is something else.
