On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 8:00 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
Heh.. I did guess that. Since neither solution is complete, I'm in
favor of Charles's and assume that i-t-a forces to ignore CE_SKIP and
CE_SKIP_WORKTREE. I could wait for people to come back complaining,
then we know there are real users in very obscure cases and will fix
it then.
--
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