Hi Junio, On Wed, 30 Oct 2019, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> > writes: > > > From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx> > > > > While `git update-index` mostly ignores paths referring to index entries > > whose skip-worktree bit is set, in b4d1690df11 (Teach Git to respect > > skip-worktree bit (reading part), 2009-08-20), for reasons that are not > > entirely obvious, the `--remove` option was made special: it _does_ > > remove index entries even if their skip-worktree bit is set. > > > > Seeing as this behavior has been in place for a decade now, it does not > > make sense to change it. > > If this were end-user facing Porcelain behaviour, even it is a > decade old, the story would have been different, but given that it > is in an obscure corner in a plumbing command, I agree that it does > not make sense to even transition the default over releases. > > > +test_expect_success '--ignore-skip-worktree-entries leaves worktree alone' ' > > + test_commit geroff-me && > > + git update-index --skip-worktree geroff-me.t && > > + rm geroff-me.t && > > I do not see a need to swear with a sample file name. It may make > sense to use words that relate to what the test is checking (e.g. > skip-me or something like that), but otherwise meaningless filenames > used in other tests (like 1, 2, etc) would be more in line with the > existing tests. I changed this locally to `keep-me`. But then I saw that you merged this patch pair to `next` already... Do you want an add-on patch, or revert it out of `next`, or leave as-is? I'd like to know because I still want to merge this into Git for Windows v2.24.0-rc2, and I would love to deviate as little as possible from git.git there. > > + > > + : ignoring the worktree && > > + git update-index --remove --ignore-skip-worktree-entries geroff-me.t && > > + git diff-index --cached --exit-code HEAD && > > HEAD has it, working tree does not, and the one in the index should > have been kept thanks to the new option added by this patch. Makes > sense. > > > + : not ignoring the worktree, a deletion is staged && > > + git update-index --remove geroff-me.t && > > + test_must_fail git diff-index --cached --exit-code HEAD > > Testing the other side of the coin (i.e. adding the new feature did > not accidentally stop the command from removing by default) is good; > "should have no difference" was a good test for the other side, but > in contrast, "should have some difference" is a very loose test when > the difference we want to see is that the particular path gets removed > and no other changes. True. I changed it to `test_must_fail git rev-parse :keep-me` locally (to test for the staged deletion, although it just occurred to me that I would rather want to add the `--diff-filter=D` option and filter by the file name to really verify that a deletion was staged), but again, I noticed that you already merged this to `next`... So: revert out of `next`, add-on patch, or leave as-is? Thanks, Dscho > > > +' > > + > > #TODO test_expect_failure 'git-apply adds file' false > > #TODO test_expect_failure 'git-apply updates file' false > > #TODO test_expect_failure 'git-apply removes file' false > >
