Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Doing a "git diff" cannot actually update the index (since it very >> much has to work on a read-only setup too), which is why the index >> _stays_ stale unless something is done (eg "git status") to refresh >> it. And it's that stale index that continues to make for bad >> performance without any indication of why that is a problem. > > Indeed. > > At least, I am now glad to know that somebody else is of the same > opinion as I am. I don't want a system to tell me when it is shooting itself in the foot. It should not be doing this in the first place. File systems have automatic fsck procedures enforced regularly, too, to keep them operative. If git finds that it is getting inefficient, it should just mark the index as "regenerate at next access". And then do it. -- David Kastrup - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
