On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 02:25:25PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > While I do not have any problem with adding an optional "keep lost
> > paths as intent-to-add entries" feature, I am not sure why this has
> > to be so different from the usual add-cache-entry codepath. The
> > if/elseif chain you are touching inside this loop does:
> >
> > - If the tree you are resetting to has something at the path
> > (which is different from the current index, obviously), create
> > a cache entry to represent that state from the tree and stuff
> > it in the index;
> >
> > - Otherwise, the tree you are resetting to does not have that
> > path. We used to say "remove it from the index", but now we have
> > an option to instead add it as an intent-to-add entry.
> >
> > So, why doesn't the new codepath do exactly the same thing as the
> > first branch of the if/else chain and call add_cache_entry but with
> > a ce marked with CE_INTENT_TO_ADD? That would parallel what happens
> > in "git add -N" better, I would think, no?
>
> In other words, something along this line, perhaps?
<snip>
Yes. But you need something like this on top to actually set
CE_INTENT_TO_ADD
-- 8< --
diff --git a/read-cache.c b/read-cache.c
index 325d193..87f1367 100644
--- a/read-cache.c
+++ b/read-cache.c
@@ -585,6 +585,7 @@ void mark_intent_to_add(struct cache_entry *ce)
if (write_sha1_file("", 0, blob_type, sha1))
die("cannot create an empty blob in the object database");
hashcpy(ce->sha1, sha1);
+ ce->ce_flags |= CE_INTENT_TO_ADD;
}
int add_to_index(struct index_state *istate, const char *path, struct stat *st, int flags)
-- 8< --
--
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