Re: [PATCH 2/9] merge-recursive: clarify code in was_tracked()

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

 



Hi Junio,

On Wed, 6 Jul 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > To understand why we're not done yet, the crucial point is *not* that the
> > return value encodes the insert position. The crucial point is that
> > despite asking for an index entry matching a specific name, we might not
> > find one, *even if there is one*.
> 
> I've been wondering why you keep saying "even though we didn't ask,
> we look for stage#0", and now I see why.  The cache_pos() interface
> *is* about finding the stage#0 entry for the given path.

Good that this is clarified now.

> [...]
> As you pointed out, we can return early without falling into the
> generic "we are still looking at the same path" codepath when we
> find thestage#0 entry, so I wouldn't mind doing something like the
> following.
> [...]

As this is essentially what I wrote with some minor touch-ups, I just
replaced my version with yours.

Will resend,
Dscho
--
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]