Re: Couple of read-tree questions

Daniel Barkalow [off-list ref] writes:

(The thread you mention seems to say that we accept entries being missing 
from the index as if they were unchanged, but I don't see a good reason 
for this; you'd be dealing with the full set in the index for the merge, 
even if you don't have a populated working tree)

You are correct.  I was wondering myself why *both* of us
thought (or Linus *seemed* to be agreeing, at least to me) what I
was referring to as I+H made any sense while re-reaing the
thread.

I should have asked sooner, then. :) There's a bunch of clutter to get it 
to work that I can remove if it's not actually necessary.

Yeah, removal of dead code!  Go wild, please.