Jens Lehmann <Jens.Lehmann@xxxxxx> writes: > Until now there was no way to test if unpack_trees() with update=1 would > succeed without really updating the work tree. The reason for that is that > setting update to 0 does skip the tests for new files and deactivates the > sparse handling, thereby making that unsuitable as a dry run. > > Add the new dry_run flag to struct unpack_trees_options unpack_trees(). > Setting that together with the update flag will check if the work tree > update would be successful without doing it for real. > > The only class of problems that is not detected at the moment are file > system conditions like ENOSPC or missing permissions. Also the index > entries of updated files are not as they would be after a real checkout > because lstat() isn't run as the files aren't updated for real. > > Signed-off-by: Jens Lehmann <Jens.Lehmann@xxxxxx> > --- Looks good. remove_marked_cache_entries() does not touch the working tree, and because you are not calling unlink_entry(), you won't trigger schedule_dir_for_removal() hence remove_scheduled_dirs() won't cause us any trouble either. Will queue. Thanks. -- 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