On 2009-03-30 17:01:12 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> 2009/3/26 Karl Hasselström <kha@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> > 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.
>
> I tried but gave up quickly. The IndexAndWorktree class also dirties
> the Index with the merge operations, so it is not worth the hassle.
OK. (Though you should be able to set the tree to None for those
cases, since the meaning of None is simply that we don't promise
anything about what tree is currently in the index.)
And since I've run out of even remotely plausible things to complain
about,
Acked-by: Karl Hasselström <kha@xxxxxxxxxxx>
--
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
