Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 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
Yes, indeed. I wonder why your new test did not notice it, though
;-)
>
> -- 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