> -----Original Message----- > From: David Turner [mailto:David.Turner@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 5:27 PM > To: 'Ben Peart' <peartben@xxxxxxxxx>; Ben Peart > <Ben.Peart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: avarab@xxxxxxxxx; christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx; git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > gitster@xxxxxxxxx; johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx; pclouds@xxxxxxxxx; > peff@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [PATCH v7 06/12] ls-files: Add support in ls-files to display the > fsmonitor valid bit > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ben Peart [mailto:peartben@xxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 4:45 PM > > To: David Turner <David.Turner@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; 'Ben Peart' > > <benpeart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: avarab@xxxxxxxxx; christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx; git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > gitster@xxxxxxxxx; johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx; pclouds@xxxxxxxxx; > > peff@xxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 06/12] ls-files: Add support in ls-files to > > display the fsmonitor valid bit > > > > > > > > On 9/19/2017 3:46 PM, David Turner wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Ben Peart [mailto:benpeart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 3:28 PM > > >> To: benpeart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > >> Cc: David Turner <David.Turner@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; avarab@xxxxxxxxx; > > >> christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx; git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gitster@xxxxxxxxx; > > >> johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx; pclouds@xxxxxxxxx; peff@xxxxxxxx > > >> Subject: [PATCH v7 06/12] ls-files: Add support in ls-files to > > >> display the fsmonitor valid bit > > >> > > >> Add a new command line option (-f) to ls-files to have it use > > >> lowercase letters for 'fsmonitor valid' files > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Ben Peart <benpeart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >> --- > > >> builtin/ls-files.c | 8 ++++++-- > > >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > This is still missing the corresponding documentation patch. > > > > Sorry for the confusion. > > Thanks for following up. > > > > 10/12 (no reply, haven't checked whether same issue but I assume > > > same issue since the new case I mentioned isn't added) > > > > It wasn't a bug so I didn't "fix" it. I just sent an explanation and > > patch demonstrating why. You can find it here: > > I was concerned about the case of an untracked file inside a directory that > contains no tracked files. Your patch in this mail treats dir3 just like dir1 and > dir2. I think you ought to test the case of a dir with no tracked files. > In the case where there is an untracked file inside a directory that contains no tracked files, git will (as shown by the "failing" test) actually find the untracked file. This is the correct/expected behavior. The test failure is just indicating that the optimization of not searching that directory for untracked files was not able to occur (because there was no entry in the untracked cache for that directory). > After more careful checking, it looks like this case does work, but it's still > worth testing.
