Re: [PATCH 4/4] refresh_index: notice typechanges in output

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 04:08:32PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> I agree that we should not say that an intent-to-add entry has changed
> type relative to whatever, as by definition there is nothing to compare
> against. "A" that stands for "A"dd is a lot more sensible here, I would
> think.

Yeah, that makes sense to me.

> +			if (cache_errno == ENOENT)
> +				fmt = deleted_fmt;
> +			else if (ce->ce_flags & CE_INTENT_TO_ADD)
> +				fmt = added_fmt; /* must be before other checks */

Thanks, I was trying to figure out how to tell an intent-to-add file
from the 'changed' flag, but obviously looking for the bit in the cache
entry is the right thing.

Do you want to add your patch on top, or do you want me to re-roll with
this squashed in? I can also hold the re-roll until post-release if you
want.

-Peff
--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]