Jan Hudec wrote:
>On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 05:16:47 -0700, david@xxxxxxx wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008, Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
>>> However, pondering the idea a bit more, I could envision something
>>> similar to the following:
>.... provided the two entries under the same name wouldn't drive the internal
>logic completely mad, I quite like this. Note by the way, that you need to
>allow for two trees too, because you may want to store attributes for
Well, in theory yes, but currently git doesn't store directories.
How about extending git-core to allow for storage of directories by
virtue of the following object in a tree:
040000 blob e69de29bb2d1d6434b8b29ae775ad8c2e48c5391 .
I.e. the hash belongs to the empty blob.
Normally you don't (have to) store these directory blobs, but if you
insist on having them, git will create the empty directory on checkout
(i.e. you wouldn't need the dummy file trick anymore to force the
directory to be present).
--
Sincerely,
Stephen R. van den Berg.
Real programmers don't produce results, they return exit codes.
--
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
