Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Do we see these CE_UPDATE|CE_WT_REMOVE bits attached to the cache >> entries in the o->src_index array when get_progress() is fed the >> src_index in the first place? > > Yes, before calling check_updates(o, o->src_index), update_sparsity() > loops over o->src_index and calls apply_sparse_checkout() on each of > the non-conflicted cache entries. apply_sparse_checkout() will set > either CE_UPDATE or CE_WT_REMOVE whenever items flip from or to having > the SKIP_WORKTREE bit set. Hmph. I thought that the whole point of splitting o->result from o->src_index we did long time ago was to allow us to treat o->src_index constant. I hope we haven't broken anything by starting to do things like that X-<. Anyway, if that is the case, this change won't make things any worse. Let's queue it. Thanks.
