Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Dying when "update-index --refresh" signals a difference is an
> attempt to mimic #1, but it is in line with the spirit of the reason
> why a user would want to use updateInstead, I think. The situation
> is more like the person who pushed into your repository from
> sideline did a "checkout -B $current_branch $new_commit" to update
> the HEAD, the index and the working tree, to let you pretend as if
> you based your work on the commit he pushed to you.
>
> While you still need to error out when your local work does not
> satisfy the cleanliness criteria #3 above, I do not think you would
> want to stop the operation when "checkout" would not fail, e.g. you
> have a local change that does not interfere with the update between
> the two commits, with this one:
>
> + if (run_command(&child))
> + die ("Could not refresh the index");
>
> When refreshed the index successfully, we signal that there were
> differences between the index and the working tree with a non-zero
> return value, so "Could not refresh" is not quite right, either.
Just to make sure. I am *not* saying that you do not need to run
"update-index --refresh". It is necessary before running read-tree
to avoid false dirtyness, so you do need to run it.
I am only saying that it is too strict to fail the operation when
the command reports that you have a local modification in the
working tree.
> But this one that checks the exit status from two-tree read-tree
>
> + if (run_command(&child))
> + die ("Could not merge working tree with new HEAD. Good luck.");
>
> is checking the right condition, i.e. cleanliness #3. The
> disposition should not be "die", but an error return to tell the
> caller to abort the push as we discussed earlier.
--
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