Clemens Buchacher <drizzd@xxxxxx> writes:
> Git traditionally overwrites untracked symlinks silently. This will
> generally not cause massive data loss, but it is inconsistent with
> the behavior for regular files, which are not silently overwritten.
>
> With this change, git refuses to overwrite untracked symlinks by
> default. If the user really wants to overwrite the untracked
> symlink, he has git-clean and git-checkout -f at his disposal.
>
> Signed-off-by: Clemens Buchacher <drizzd@xxxxxx>
> ---
>
> I checked and there are no undesireable side-effects. One test had
> to be modified slightly because it does overwrite an untracked
> symlink.
>
> symlinks.c | 2 +-
> t/t6035-merge-dir-to-symlink.sh | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/symlinks.c b/symlinks.c
> index 3cacebd..034943b 100644
> --- a/symlinks.c
> +++ b/symlinks.c
> @@ -223,7 +223,7 @@ int check_leading_path(const char *name, int len)
> int flags;
> int match_len = lstat_cache_matchlen(cache, name, len, &flags,
> FL_SYMLINK|FL_NOENT|FL_DIR, USE_ONLY_LSTAT);
> - if (flags & (FL_SYMLINK|FL_NOENT))
> + if (flags & FL_NOENT)
> return 0;
> else if (flags & FL_DIR)
> return -1;
> diff --git a/t/t6035-merge-dir-to-symlink.sh b/t/t6035-merge-dir-to-symlink.sh
> index 92e02d5..1de285b 100755
> --- a/t/t6035-merge-dir-to-symlink.sh
> +++ b/t/t6035-merge-dir-to-symlink.sh
> @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ test_expect_success SYMLINKS 'keep a/b-2/c/d across checkout' '
> git reset --hard master &&
> git rm --cached a/b &&
> git commit -m "untracked symlink remains" &&
> - git checkout start^0 &&
> + git checkout -f start^0 &&
> test -f a/b-2/c/d
> '
The title of the test says that checkout must keep a/b-2/c/d; if "git
checkout" without "-f" doesn't do so and you had to change it to "git
checkout -f", it would mean one of two things: (1) you broke "checkout",
or (2) the behaviour the test wanted to keep working turned out to be
unwanted (iow, "git checkout" without "-f" should fail under the initial
condition this test sets up).
I suspect the situation is the latter.
What this test in 6035 does before your patch is:
0. Prepare a tree with the following path (no intermediate symlinks)
a/b/c/d
a/b-2/c/d
a/x
and call that "start";
prepare another tree with the following path
a/b -> b-2 (symlink)
a/b-2/c/d
a/x
make it a child of the "start".
1. Detach the head at the second commit (i.e. a/b symlink pointing at
b-2), and then remove a/b symlink from the index. Make a commit with
that index.
The index at that point has:
a/b-2/c/d
a/x
and in the working tree there is an untracked a/b symlink that point
at b-2.
2. Try to switch to "start"'s tree. To be able to check it out, a
directory needs to be created at a/b (as we need c/d underneath it),
but untracked symbolic link in the working tree a/b interferes with
it, and it _should_ fail.
So instead of testing "with -f, the untracked path is nuked" and still
calling the test to "preserve a/b-2/c/d", shouldn't you rename the test to
make sure the untracked symlink is preserved, and make sure checkout
without "-f" fails?
Of course, in addition to the above, it would be a good idea to add
another test that makes sure that with "checkout -f" the user can get rid
of the untracked symlink and check out what he wanted to check out.
Hmm?
--
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