On Sat Aug 8, 2020 at 9:46 AM EDT, Phillip Wood wrote: > > By definition, an intent-to-add index entry can never match the > > worktree, because worktrees have no concept of intent-to-add entries. > > Therefore, "apply --index" should always fail on intent-to-add paths. > > I'm not sure I understand the logic for this. If I run 'git add -N > <path>' and <path> does not exist in the worktree what's the reason to > stop a patch that creates <path> from applying? "apply --index" requires the index and worktree to match, and applies the same path to both to get the same result in both. I brainstormed the logic a few emails upthread, and that's what's consistent with everything else. > I was relieved to see from the next patch that this does not affect > --cached even though the documentation says it implies --index. It might > be worth mentioning that in the commit message. Also it would be easier > to follow if the tests were in the same patch (this is what we usually > do). --cached doesn't really imply --index - the docs are wrong and should be changed. If anything, --index is closer to implying --cached - but really, [no flags], --cached, and --index are three different modes with different behavior. (Just removing "this implies --index" would be sufficient to make the docs correct.) > How this does it affect --check? `git add -p` uses --check to verify > that hunks that the user has edited still apply. It does not let the > user edit the hunk for a newly added file at the moment but that is > something I'm thinking of adding. --check goes through all the same code, it just doesn't actually touch anything in the index or worktree. Splittable/editable new file patches are a logical related feature, IMO. (This is just to squash an error that shouldn't happen.)
