On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 07:11:05AM +0200, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> > It might be enough to just issue a warning and give an advise() hint
> > that tells the user what's going on. Then they can decide what to do
> > (hide both paths, or just work in the index, or move to a different fs,
> > or complain to upstream).
>
> Yeah that may be the best option. Something like this perhaps? Not
> sure how much detail the advice should be here.
Yeah, something along these lines. I agree with Simon's comment
elsewhere that this should probably mention the names. I don't know if
we'd want to offer advice pointing them to using the sparse feature to
work around it.
> +static int has_duplicate_icase_entries(struct index_state *istate)
> +{
> + struct string_list list = STRING_LIST_INIT_NODUP;
> + int i;
> + int found = 0;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < istate->cache_nr; i++)
> + string_list_append(&list, istate->cache[i]->name);
> +
> + list.cmp = strcasecmp;
> + string_list_sort(&list);
> +
> + for (i = 1; i < list.nr; i++) {
> + if (strcasecmp(list.items[i-1].string,
> + list.items[i].string))
> + continue;
> + found = 1;
> + break;
> + }
> + string_list_clear(&list, 0);
> +
> + return found;
> +}
strcasecmp() will only catch a subset of the cases. We really need to
follow the same folding rules that the filesystem would.
For the case of clone, I actually wonder if we could detect during the
checkout step that a file already exists. Since we know that the
directory we started with was empty, then if it does, either:
- there's some funny case-folding going on that means two paths in the
repository map to the same name in the filesystem; or
- somebody else is writing to the directory at the same time as us
Either of which I think would be worth warning about. I'm not sure if we
already lstat() the paths we're writing anyway as part of the checkout,
so we might even get the feature "for free".
-Peff
