Hi Junio,
On Thu, 25 Jun 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx>
> writes:
>
> > From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx>
> >
> > The documented behavior of `git diff-files --raw` is to display
> >
> > [...] 0{40} if creation, unmerged or "look at work tree".
>
> "on the right hand (i.e. postimage) side" is missing, which is
> crucial in this description.
True. Sorry for omitting that.
> > This happens for example when showing modified, unstaged files.
>
> Modified I would understand. We notice that the contents on the
> work tree is different from what is in the index, and we tell the
> consumer "look at work tree". I do not think you meant "unstaged",
Right. I probably should have written "[...] when showing files with
unstaged modifications".
> though. If truly removed from the index, diff-files won't even know
> about the path. You probably meant "removed from the working tree",
> but 0{40} in that case means totally different thing (i.e. it would
> be a (D)eletion record, so 0{40} on the postimage side is a filler,
> not even "look at work tree"). What would make more sense to
> describe might be
>
> This happens for paths that are modified, or unmodified but
> stat-dirty.
Yes, but that includes more than I wanted to describe because the
stat-dirty does not matter for intent-to-add files, and I wanted to point
out the analogy between unstaged modifications and intent-to-add-files.
I noticed that you merged this commit into `next` already, so I am
assuming that you do not want me to send a fifth iteration ;-)
Ciao,
Dscho
> Either case, we tell the consumer to check the "work tree".
>
> > For intent-to-add files, we used to show the empty blob's hash instead.
> > In c26022ea8f5 (diff: convert diff_addremove to struct object_id,
> > 2017-05-30), we made that worse by inadvertently changing that to the
> > hash of the empty tree.
> >
> > Let's make the behavior consistent with modified files by showing
> > all-zero values also for intent-to-add files.
>
> Well described.
>
> Thanks.
>
