On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 5:16 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Ramsay Jones <ramsay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On 14/07/14 18:51, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> Ramsay Jones <ramsay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>>> that the merge commit 7608c87e fails. Looking at the details of the >>>> merge resolution, made me think of Duy's split index work. >>> >>> Yes, there is a deliberately dropped hunk from dt/cache-tree-repair >>> in that merge, because the topic relied on being able to say "here >>> is the file descriptor, write the index to it", which no longer is >>> available with the split-index topic. >> >> Ah, OK. Sounds like everything is under control then. > > Wasn't, but now I think it is ;-) > > David, could you please double check the conflict resolution at > 882426ea (Merge branch 'dt/cache-tree-repair' into jch, 2014-07-14), > at about the middle between master..pu? By eyeballing > > git diff 882426ea^ 882426ea > > we should see what your series would have done if it were based on > top of the nd/split-index topic. The most iffy is the first hunk of > change to builtin/commit.c, which is more or less my rewrite of what > you did on top of 'master'. It makes me wonder if a cleaner way of rebuilding cache-treei in this case is from git-add--interactive.perl, or by simply spawn "git update-index --rebuild-cache-tree" after running git-add--interactive.perl. -- Duy -- 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