Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> By "it" I assume you mean "the sha1 of the empty tree", meaning to not
> include the {} bit at all?
Yes, that's what I meant.
> I am fine with that, as I don't think anyone has even mentioned a
> workflow where such a shorthand would be beneficial to users. The only
> one I can think of is to represent some tree using diff tools (e.g., "git
> diff --stat {} HEAD" instead of some variant on ls-files), but I have
> never once actually wanted to do that.
Likewise.
> Should I re-send, or do you want to just markup the existing patches?
Shouldn't the previous one that uses the hardcoded empty tree
object name good enough that is already on 'pu'?
-
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
