From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: Empty directories... Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 19:23:15 -0700 Message-ID: <7v8x9ea1rg.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <85lkdezi08.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: David Kastrup X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jul 18 04:23:20 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IAzCB-0003wj-Q5 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 04:23:20 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757074AbXGRCXR (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:23:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756426AbXGRCXR (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:23:17 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao102.cox.net ([68.230.241.44]:46964 "EHLO fed1rmmtao102.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755137AbXGRCXQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:23:16 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao102.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20070718022315.LHHF1428.fed1rmmtao102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net>; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:23:15 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id QqPF1X00D1kojtg0000000; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:23:16 -0400 In-Reply-To: <85lkdezi08.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> (David Kastrup's message of "Wed, 18 Jul 2007 02:13:11 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: David Kastrup writes: > or has somebody a better idea or interface or rationale? I understand > that there are use cases where one does not bother about empty > directories, but for a _content_ tracker, not tracking directories > because they are empty seems quite serious. No objections as long as a patch is cleanly made without regression. It's just nobody agreed that it is "quite serious" yet so far, and no fundamental reason against it.