On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:31:54 +0100
Jeroen De Vlieger <fly....@gmail.com> wrote:
> I guess, it depends on what you call empty. And even then it is kind
> of confusing with the statement that git tracks files, *not*
> Hence I would expect git to also ignores files not the directory
> itself. Hence in my opinion it should list all ignored files in your
> working directory which are not tracked. I feel that it does not
> matter whether the directory, is empty or not. Especially since git
> doesn't really track directories, it tracks files. For that matter:
> Why does git even have concept of a directory, empty or otherwise? If
> it only tracks files?
To be precise, Git developers like to say Git does not even track
files, but it rather tracks *content* instead. This is true in some
way: for instance Git does not explicitly tracks renames of files and
directories, and to detect them, its various history-walking tools
employ special heuristics.
On the other hand, one cannot ignore files completely, as most
contemporary computer systems on which Git is used use files as the
means of managing persistent storage of information. So Git uses the
concept of file names to some extent: its tools working with local file
system manipulate files (obviously), and the so-called "trees" in the
Git database keep names of the original files used to place their
contents to the Git database.
Asking on the main Git list might be a good idea anyway. At least you
might receive an explanation of the background for such design decision.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git
for human beings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.