Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> So I wonder if a better change would be more like
>>
>> for (...) {
>> if (!S_ISREG(ce->ce_mode))
>> continue; /* not a regular file */
>> if (!ce_path_match(ce, pathspec, NULL)
>> continue; /* uninteresting */
>> + if (cached && ce_intent_to_add(ce))
>> + continue; /* path not yet in the index */
>>
>> if (cached || ...)
>> UNCHANGED FROM THE ORIGINAL
>>
>> perhaps?
>
> I did wonder a bit about these cases. But, can i-t-a really be
> combined with CE_VALID or CE_SKIP_WORKTREE? CE_SKIP_... is
> automatically set and should not cover i-t-a entries imo (I didn't
> check the implementation). CE_VALID is about real entries, yes you
> could do "git update-index --assume-unchanged <ita-path>" but it does
> not feel right to me.
Yeah but we know people are stupid^W^Wdo unexpected things ;-)
> If cached is false and ce_ita() is true and either CE_VALID or
> CE_SKIP_WORKTREE is set, we would continue to grep an _empty_ SHA-1.
> But I think we should grep_file() instead, at least for CE_VALID.
Yes, that is the breakage I noticed in the patch under discussion
and that I wanted to fix in the "I wonder if a better change would
be..." version.
--
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