On Tue, 13 May 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > With the change to remove the whole block, all tests still passes, and a > limited test with this: > > --- empty 2008-05-13 16:56:57.000000000 -0700 > +++ empty.1 2008-05-13 16:57:07.000000000 -0700 > @@ -0,0 +1 @@ > +foo > > to update an originally empty file "empty" also seems to work. > > However, with this change, it no longer allows you to accept such a patch > and treat it as a creation of "empty". Instead we barf with "error: > empty: No such file or directory", if you do not have an empty "empty" > file in the work tree when you run "git apply" on the above patch. Ok, that's a bug. It should *not* require that existing empty file, since "is_new" is -1. That's what -1 means: we don't know if it is new or not. So I think your patch is correct, but we need to fix the thing that barfs to not barf if we don't know the status of "is_new" Linus -- 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
