Kirill Smelkov <k...@nexedi.com> writes: > On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 09:52:18AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> "touch A" forcess the readers wonder "does the timestamp of A >> matter, and if so in what way?" and "does any later test care what >> is _in_ A, and if so in what way?" Both of them is wasting their >> time when there is no reason why "touch" should have been used. > > I see, thanks for explaining. I used to read it a bit the other way;
Surely ">A" may invite "Hmm, is it important that A gets empty?", so the choice between the two is not so black-and-white. It just is that "touch" has a more specific "update the timestamp while keeping its contents intact" meaning, compared to ">A", which _could_ be read as "make it empty and update its mtime" but most people would not (i.e. "update its mtime" is a side effect for any modification). > Ok, makes sense. Both patches adjusted and will be reposted. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
