Hi Junio,
On Mon, 10 Nov 2014, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 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.
Okay, now I am even more puzzled. I guess you actually meant to say that I
need to convert the die() into a return? If so, I agree fully.
Ciao,
Johannes
--
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