Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:

quoted text
> On Tue, 13 May 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> 
>> With the change to remove the whole block, all tests still passes, and a
>> limited test with this:
>> 
>>         --- empty	2008-05-13 16:56:57.000000000 -0700
>>         +++ empty.1	2008-05-13 16:57:07.000000000 -0700
>>         @@ -0,0 +1 @@
>>         +foo
>> 
>> to update an originally empty file "empty" also seems to work.
>> 
>> However, with this change, it no longer allows you to accept such a patch
>> and treat it as a creation of "empty".  Instead we barf with "error:
>> empty: No such file or directory", if you do not have an empty "empty"
>> file in the work tree when you run "git apply" on the above patch.
>
> Ok, that's a bug. It should *not* require that existing empty file, since 
> "is_new" is -1. That's what -1 means: we don't know if it is new or not.
>
> So I think your patch is correct, but we need to fix the thing that barfs 
> to not barf if we don't know the status of "is_new"

Sorry for taking some time to follow this through (I've been busy with day
job).  Two patches follow this message to address this issue.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html