Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> This explains for why 'broken' must use a subprocess, but there is >> nothing stopping 'dirty' from also using a subprocess, right? It >> currently uses an in-process index refresh but it _could_ be a >> subprocess too. > > Correct, except that it does not make sense to do any and all things > that you _could_ do. So... Well, In this context, I think there is some merit though. There are two blocks of code `--broken` and `--dirty` one after the other which both need to refresh the index. With this patch, 'broken' will use a child process to do so while 'dirty' will use `refresh_index(...)`. To someone reading the code it would seem a bit confusing. I agree there is no merit in using a child process in 'dirty' by itself. But I also think we should leave a comment there for readers to understand the distinction.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
