Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:
> It is still at what cache_name_pos(cp, namelen) pointed to, or NULL if
> the entry does not exist (e.g. there is no cache entry, or all cache
> entries are lexicographically smaller).
>
>> For example, would this work?
>>
>> $ echo >t- && git add t-
>> $ git show :t
>> $ git show :t/
>
> I think so: The code explicitely checks for a trailing '/'. (See second
> last line of the hunk you quoted.)
The comment was not about the trailing / version, but the one without.
Have you tried them?
>> > + struct cache_tree *tree =
>> > + cache_tree_find(active_cache_tree, cp);
>> > + if (!cache_tree_fully_valid(tree)) {
>> > + ret = cache_tree_update(active_cache_tree,
>> > + active_cache, active_nr, 0, 0);
>> > + if (ret < 0)
>> > + return ret;
>>
>> This gracefully errs out when the index is unmerged but fails to
>> pretend the index knows about trees, if the unmerged part of
>> index is outside the directory the user specified.
>
> That is correct. But in that case, we cannot sanely ask the question "what
> would the tree object look like if we committed right now?"
But that is not the question you are asking. "git-ls-files t/"
does work even though you still have cache.h unmerged in the
index.
> But then it turned out that I even use it before committing, like when I
> ask "what files would be in my next revision?" It is not a question
> arising daily, but sometimes it is interesting to see _before_ committing
> them. (Note that I am not only interested in the _modified_ files.)
So it really is about being able to say show while you mean ls-files.
I am not opposed to that goal at all. I think it makes it
easier to type. But I think using cache-tree is a wrong
approach.
-
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