On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> In cache.h we have a NO_THE_INDEX_COMPATIBILITY_MACROS, >>> and lots of >>> #define foo_bar(..) frob_bar(&the_index, (..)) >>> >>> Could you operate on the raw functions that take pointers to &the_index >>> and point these to a temporary index? >> >> Isn't mention of the_index is a red-herring? >> >> The in-core index_state does not even know what file it needs to be >> written to, so whether you explicitly specify your own index or use >> the compat macros to access the_index, you would need to specify to >> which file you would write it out or from which file you would read >> the new contents. > > Having said that, I agree with you that the cop-out "Yes we know > this is bad" needs a lot more clarification, pointing out what issue > this side-steps and a direction to solve it correctly. I am ok to add more explanations like those in my answer to Stefan in the commit message, and also to add a warning comment in cache.h, but I am not sure I know really well how to solve these issues correctly. So I am not sure what I could add about that, except perhaps that it is an other project to fix these issues and that it should start by fixing them in other core libified code like dir.c and diff.c. Do you want me to resend everything, or is it ok if I just resend the last 9 patches in the series, so starting from this patch (32/41)? -- 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