Thomas Rast <trast@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> So it detects there are worktree changes, but then decides not to show
> them because it's an unmerged entry. I think the following should go
> in 3/5, but note that I haven't looked at the rest of the code to
> check if it breaks anything:
Thanks. Shouldn't it go in 4/5 instead, though?
> -- 8< --
> diff --git i/wt-status.c w/wt-status.c
> index 6370fe2..5a68297 100644
> --- i/wt-status.c
> +++ w/wt-status.c
> @@ -400,7 +400,8 @@ static int wt_status_check_worktree_changes(struct wt_status *s)
> for (i = 0; i < s->change.nr; i++) {
> struct wt_status_change_data *d;
> d = s->change.items[i].util;
> - if (!d->worktree_status)
> + if (!d->worktree_status
> + || d->index_status == DIFF_STATUS_UNMERGED)
> continue;
> changes = 1;
> if (d->worktree_status == DIFF_STATUS_DELETED)
> -- >8 --
Not "d->worktree_status"? That would be more consistent with what
wt_status_print_changed() actually ends up checking.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html