On 2/9/07, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
And you wouldn't think that it really needs write access, and you'd be
largely correct, EXCEPT for the fact that git status actually does a
refresh of the index, to make sure that we don't claim that something is
dirty just because somebody has touched the file.
IOW, there's an implicit "git update-index --refresh" as part of
calculating the status, and that's the thing that wants to lock the index
file (and thus write to the filesystem).
------ cut ------
You *can* just use "git-runstatus" instead. That's the command that
actually does all the heavy lifting. But you can see the difference by
doing this:
touch Makefile
git runstatus
vs
touch Makefile
git status
Notice how the "runstatus" one claims that Makefile is "modified:". That's
exactly because it doesn't do the index refresh.
Sorry, perhaps it is a silly question, but why git index should be
different after just touching a file?
IOW is it not possible that "git update-index --refresh" exists
without modifing the index, just because ther's nothing to modify?
So, finally, could be possible making "git status" taking the lock
only _after_ has checked there's something new to write to the index?
So to avoid write access in most cases ? (expecially with repo mounted
on a read-only fs)
Thanks
Marco
-
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