[BUG] spurious tree root changes in workingtree2 and 3

[Aaron Bentley]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Robert Collins wrote:
> I realise this has probably been done to death somewhat; but what do you
> think of exposing 'None' as the revision in this case? It would let me
> detect when it should not be included in the commit candidates list.

I don't know why you would want to exclude it.  That decision should be
made by the CommitBuilder.

I don't want the result of revision_tree() to differ between knit1 and
knit3 repos.

> As far as the changes to recorded transitive alterations in inventories,
> its not clear to me that that will affect the last_modified flag.

If it affects the InventoryEntry, then I believe it must affect the
last_modified flag.

But I was talking about it affecting knit records, not the last_modified
flag.  I am not one of the people who championed the use of knits to
record when inventory entries had changed.  But that has become part of
our model, and it is logical to suppose that would be extended to adding
knit records when the contents of directories have changed.

> It may
> well just add another field, or be an emergent aspect of the storage.

Well, no one's said anything about it.

I just think the tone of your initial email was a bit extreme.  There's
already plenty of useless knit records in our repositories-- uncommitted
revisions, unreferenced file texts, and texts that are unchanged from
the previous version.

Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGzjj70F+nu1YWqI0RAoYcAJ95eWUI8kS5sTmXdVQscV88AD/rLwCaAicd
zfWbatAibHfhQuiSRFSOUHg=
=96kW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----