On 2009-03-25 10:24:13 +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> BTW, why don't we keep the tree information directly in the Index
> object? Since this object is modified only via its own interface, it
> can do all the checks and avoid the managing of temp_index_tree in
> the Transaction object.
I guess that might be a good idea -- it should be doable without any
extra overhead for users that don't want it.
> Yes. But it may be even better to do this in Index.
> Index.apply_treediff() would set the tree to None and read_tree or
> write_tree would set it to the corresponding tree.
We'd have to cover the other index operations too. But yes, this is
probably a good idea.
> > 3. Why are empty patches considered not merged?
>
> They would be reported as empty anyway and in general you don't
> submit empty patches for upstream merging.
Ah, duh. I was forgetting what the "merged" detection was for in the
first place.
--
Karl Hasselström, kha@xxxxxxxxxxx
www.treskal.com/kalle
--
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
