Re: bug report on update-index --assume-unchanged

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> You are correct about the original idea behind --assume-unchanged. But
> over the time I think we bend over a bit and sort of support these use
> cases. For example, aecda37 (do not overwrite files marked "assume
> unchanged" - 2010-05-01). The change is one-liner, so I don't mind
> doing it.

I think that was a misguided change to make the semantics muddy and
to break the existing users who use the bit for its intended purpose
(i.e. to avoid lstat() by promising that it is not necessary), and
not "bending over to support".  Offhand, I doubt we would want to
add more of the same kind.
--
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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]