On 09/11, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > @@ -955,10 +941,8 @@ int cmd_update_index(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> > PARSE_OPT_NOARG | /* disallow --cacheinfo=<mode> form */
> > PARSE_OPT_NONEG | PARSE_OPT_LITERAL_ARGHELP,
> > (parse_opt_cb *) cacheinfo_callback},
> > - {OPTION_CALLBACK, 0, "chmod", &set_executable_bit, N_("(+/-)x"),
> > - N_("override the executable bit of the listed files"),
> > - PARSE_OPT_NONEG | PARSE_OPT_LITERAL_ARGHELP,
> > - chmod_callback},
> > + OPT_STRING( 0, "chmod", &chmod_arg, N_("(+/-)x"),
> > + N_("override the executable bit of the listed files")),
> > {OPTION_SET_INT, 0, "assume-unchanged", &mark_valid_only, NULL,
> > N_("mark files as \"not changing\""),
> > PARSE_OPT_NOARG | PARSE_OPT_NONEG, NULL, MARK_FLAG},
> > @@ -1018,6 +1002,15 @@ int cmd_update_index(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> > if (argc == 2 && !strcmp(argv[1], "-h"))
> > usage_with_options(update_index_usage, options);
> >
> > + if (!chmod_arg)
> > + force_mode = 0;
> > + else if (!strcmp(chmod_arg, "-x"))
> > + force_mode = 0666;
> > + else if (!strcmp(chmod_arg, "+x"))
> > + force_mode = 0777;
> > + else
> > + die(_("option 'chmod' expects \"+x\" or \"-x\""));
> > +
>
> I am afraid that this changes the behaviour drastically.
>
> "git update-index" is an oddball command that takes options and then
> processes them immediately, exactly because it was designed to take
>
> git update-index --chmod=-x A --chmod=+x B --add C
>
> and say things like "A and B are not in the index and you are
> attempting to add them before giving me --add option".
>
> git update-index --add --chmod=-x A --chmod=+x B C
>
> is expected to add A as non-executable, and B and C as executable.
> Many exotic parse-options callback mechanisms used in this command
> were invented exactly to support its quirky way of not doing "get a
> list of options and use the last one". And this patch breaks it for
> only one option without changing the others.
>
> If we were willing to take such a big backward compatiblity hit in
> the upcoming release (which I personally won't be affected, but old
> scripts by others need to be audited and adjusted, which I won't
> volunteer to do myself), we should make such a change consistently,
> e.g. "git update-index A --add --remove B" should no longer error
> out when it sees A and it is not yet in the index because "--add"
> hasn't been given yet, or A is in the index but is missing from the
> working tree because "--remove" hasn't been given yet. Then it may
> be more justifiable if "update-index --chmod=-x A --chmod=+x B"
> added A as an executable. With the current form of this patch, it
> is not.
Thanks for the explanation, this change in backwards compatibility is
certainly not what I intended, but rather something I missed while
cooking up this patch.
> Can we do this "fix" without this change?
Yeah, let me see what I can come up with in a re-roll.
Thanks,
Thomas