On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > $ git checkout branch > > > Warning: xt_CONNMARK.c conflicts with xt_connmark.c; not checking it out > > > $ git checkout xt_CONNMARK.c --as xt_CONNMARK_caps.c > > > $ edit xt_CONNMARK_caps.c > > > $ git add xt_CONNMARK_caps.c > > > > Heh, I like that very much. > > It would make it easier to test on Linux, too, yes. > > But then, it would break the build process all the same. Sure, but it would permit a user of a filesystem that can't handle the project to make modifications that generate a commit the filesystem can handle, which is currently pretty difficult. $ git checkout xt_CONNMARK.c --as xt_CONNMARK_tmp.c $ mv xt_CONNMARK_tmp.c xt_connmark_flag.c $ edit Makefile $ git add xt_connmark_flag.c $ git commit -a (The key thing here being that git will determine that you removed xt_CONNMARK.c despite open(xt_CONNMARK.c) returning something unrelated) Remember that this level of support is to allow users who can't have the project checked out in their filesystems to manipulate the project's data, not to actually make the project work as presented in the filesystem by git. > And the implementation would _need_ the index extension Linus seems to > resent so. Linus was objecting to having redundant information stored, because it could get skewed. If the information being stored is not redundant (i.e., the normal case is that entries have a flag saying they exist in the filesystem under their own names, and the new cases are that the entry isn't present in the filesystem at all or that the entry is present in the filesystem under some other name), that isn't an issue. -Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank* - 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
