On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Michael J Gruber
<git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy venit, vidit, dixit 29.11.2009 09:47:
>> On 11/29/09, Michael J Gruber <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Test 16/17 had been fixed since its introduction in b4d1690 (Teach Git
>>> to respect skip-worktree bit (reading part), 2009-08-20). So, mark it as
>>> expect_success rather than expect_failure.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Michael J Gruber <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> No ACK. See below.
>>
>>> ---
>>> I'm actually wondering about 17/17 as well.
>>> If commit is called with a file name then shouldn't it simply commit the
>>> current state of the file in the worktree, no matter what the index or
>>> skip-worktree say? I therefore think 17/17 should be expect_success
>>> and have no test_must_fail.
>>
>> Both 16/17 and 17/17 ensure that Git won't look at files on worktree
>> if they are marked as skip-worktree (by definition of skip-worktree,
>> you can safely ignore worktree, otherwise you would not mark them as
>> such). 16/17 happens to pass, not because it does not touch worktree,
>> but because the base index does not have "1", which happens to is the
>> same situation in 16/17 (test commit when "1" is gone). The result is
>> OK but it is actually not (17/17 shows this clearer as it commits the
>> worktree version).
>
> On 16/17, I really cannot agree. You explain that you expect the test to
> succeed (we agree here), but that it succeeds for the wrong reasons. So
> it should be either "expect_success", or the test itself should be
> changed so that it really tests what it intends to, otherwise it raises
> a wrong "FIXED". I suggested and submitted the former.
That was my bad in setting up the environment for 16/17. I will fix
that in the next roll of nd/sparse.
> On 17/17, it's not clear what should happen. "skip-worktree" says ignore
> the worktree and look in the index instead of accessing worktree files.
> But "git commit file" says ignore the index and stage and commit the
> file from the worktree directly. And that is exactly what happens:
>
> You say "git commit file".
> That means "ignore the index".
> That also means that git ignores the skip-worktree bit which is set in
> the index.
> Therefore, file is committed with the content is has in the worktree.
To me, no command should break out skip-worktree mask. In reality I
would expect that case 17/17 only happens when a user accidentally
leaves a file that is marked skip-worktree and tries to commit it. An
error would be more appropriate to keep consistency with other
commands ("git diff HEAD -- 1" would show nothing before committing),
and to warn the user that he/she is stepping on the border. He/she can
then choose to extend worktree area if still wants to commit that
file. How does that sound?
> I'm going by the documentation for git-update-index and git-commit. It
> could be that they are wrong, too, but they agree with the code, so
> what's the reference for saying both code and documentation are wrong?
Both code and documentation are for Git without skip-worktree. If you
agree with my reasoning above, I will update documentation to reflect
this too.
--
Duy
--
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