Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> 于2021年1月23日周六 上午4:52写道：
>
> ZheNing Hu <adlternative@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > In order to provide users a better experience
> > when viewing information about files in the index
> > and the working tree, the `--deduplicate` option will suppress
> > some duplicate name under some conditions.
>
> Now is it just a single patch squashing everything together?
> That does not look like it.
>
> > @@ -317,7 +318,7 @@ static void show_files(struct repository *repo, struct dir_struct *dir)
> > for (i = 0; i < repo->index->cache_nr; i++) {
> > const struct cache_entry *ce = repo->index->cache[i];
> > struct stat st;
> > - int err;
> > + int stat_err;
> >
> > construct_fullname(&fullname, repo, ce);
> >
> > @@ -326,25 +327,43 @@ static void show_files(struct repository *repo, struct dir_struct *dir)
> > continue;
> > if (ce->ce_flags & CE_UPDATE)
> > continue;
> > - if (show_cached || show_stage) {
> > - if (!show_unmerged || ce_stage(ce))
> > + if ((show_cached || show_stage) &&
> > + (!show_unmerged || ce_stage(ce))) {
> > show_ce(repo, dir, ce, fullname.buf,
> > ce_stage(ce) ? tag_unmerged :
> > (ce_skip_worktree(ce) ? tag_skip_worktree :
> > tag_cached));
> > + if (show_cached && skipping_duplicates)
> > + goto skip_to_next_name;
>
> Why should this be so complex? You are dropping skipping_duplicates
> when the output is not name-only, so shouldn't this look more like
>
Truly,I may have considered too much,if I have
"show_stage","skipping_duplicates"
must be false.
> if ((show_cached || show_stage) &&
> (!show_unmerged || ce_stage(ce)) {
> show_ce(...);
> if (skipping_duplicates)
> goto skip_to_next_name;
> }
>
> It seems that this still depends on the 2/3 from the previous
> iteration, against which I suggested to merge the conditions of
> nested if statements into one. That should be done in the updated
> 2/3, not in this step, no?
>
> > }
> > + if (!show_deleted && !show_modified)
> > + continue;
>
> And this one also belongs to the step 2/3 that consolidates the two
> loops into one.
>
> I think you'd need to start from the three patches in v5, "rebase -i"
> not just [3/3] but at least [2/3], too.
>
> Thanks.
Thanks,I am rewriting.
