two factors for switching to Mercurial

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

<dvd <at> newfoundmarket.com> writes:
> 1.  lack of support for empty directory. I saw workarounds
> such as creating hidden files. But these might not work well
> when unpredictable number/depth of empty directories are required
> for other applications to function correctly. Can it be eventually
> enhanced to support empty directory byusing some command switch?
> such as  hg --include-empty
> or it can not be done due to design requirement ?

The lack of support for empty directories is a design decision that will not be
changed. This is done because having just one type of content (files) vastly
simplifies some of the code. In the current design, Mercurial can only know
about files and create directories as needed by the file names.

I don't really understand your point about needing empty directories. It seems
to me that if the number/depth of empty directories is unpredictable, you
couldn't version it anyway. (Or, instead of thinking about empty directories,
just think about empty directories that contain one little hidden files, and all
the same uses should still apply.)

Cheers,

Dirkjan