Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 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?
Er, yeah. *sigh*
> > -- 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.
Hmm, true. I just picked index_status because unmerged state is an
index property. It's probably better if the two functions agree on
the criterion.
--
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch
--
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