Hi Raymond
On 08/08/2020 15:07, Raymond E. Pasco wrote:
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 had a quick scan of the earlier email and found
> The index and the filesystem are both able to represent "no file"
> and "a file exists" states, but the index has an additional
> state (i-t-a) with no direct representation in the
> worktree. By (correctly) emitting "new file" patches when
> comparing a file to an i-t-a index entry, we are setting down the
> rule that a "new file" patch is not merely the diff between "no
> file" and "a file exists", but also the diff between i-t-a and "a
> file exists".
>
> Similarly, "deleted file" patches are the diff between "a file
> exists" and "no file exists", but they are also the diff between
> i-t-a and "no file exists" - if you add -N a file and then delete
> it from the worktree, "deleted file" is what git diff (correctly)
> shows. As a consequence of these rules, "new file" and "deleted
> file" diffs are now the only diffs that validly apply to an i-t-a
> entry. So apply needs to handle them (in "--cached" mode,
> anyway).
If I've understood correctly an i-t-a entry in the index combined with
nothing in the worktree is a deletion and that is why we don't want
--index to succeed when applying a creation patch? If so an expanded
explanation in the commit message to this patch would help rather than
just saying 'by definition'. I'm still a bit confused as we don't count
it as a deletion when using --cached or applying to the worktree.
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,
The same code as --cached or --index? (I assume it's the former but
wanted to be sure)
Thanks
Phillip
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.)
