Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote:
>> Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
>>> --- a/cache-tree.c
>>> +++ b/cache-tree.c
>>> @@ -156,6 +156,8 @@ static int verify_cache(struct cache_entry **cache,
>>> funny = 0;
>>> for (i = 0; i < entries; i++) {
>>> struct cache_entry *ce = cache[i];
>>> + if (ce->ce_flags & CE_REMOVE)
>>> + continue;
[...]
> I was lazy. In patch 26, upload-narrow-merge do three way merge and
> drop staged entries within narrow tree (this is at server side,
> conflicts within narrow tree will be handled at client side later).
> Instead of removing staged entries, I mark them CE_REMOVE.
Ah, ok; so it's to avoid spending time in remove_marked_cache_entries().
I think (though it wouldn't come up in your application) that to keep
this and avoid caller confusion one would need something like
if ((cache[i]->ce_flags & CE_REMOVE) ||
(cache[i+1]->ce_flags & CE_REMOVE))
continue;
in the other loop. I say "something like" because a person could have
marked some some but not all stages with CE_REMOVE, causing
file/directory conflicts to be missed.
Thanks for the explanation.
--
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