On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 5:18 PM Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 5:14 PM Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > diff --git a/unpack-trees.h b/unpack-trees.h
> > index d344d7d296..732b262c4d 100644
> > --- a/unpack-trees.h
> > +++ b/unpack-trees.h
> > @@ -41,9 +41,15 @@ void setup_unpack_trees_porcelain(struct unpack_trees_options *opts,
> > */
> > void clear_unpack_trees_porcelain(struct unpack_trees_options *opts);
> >
> > +enum unpack_trees_reset_type {
> > + UNPACK_NO_RESET = 0,
> > + UNPACK_RESET_OVERWRITE_UNTRACKED,
> > + UNPACK_RESET_PROTECT_UNTRACKED
> > +};
> > +
> > struct unpack_trees_options {
> > - unsigned int reset,
> > - merge,
> > + enum unpack_trees_reset_type reset;
>
> Can we add protected_untracked that can be used in combination with
> the current "reset"?
>
> This opens up (or raises the question about) the opportunity to
> protect untracked changes on non-reset updates.
Bahh. "protect_untracked" is already on for non-reset updates. Sorry
for the noise.
--
Duy
