On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > > > Way back in read-tree.c, we used a mode 0 cache entry to indicate that > > an entry had been deleted, so that the update code would remove the > > working tree file, and we would just skip it when writing out the index > > file afterward. > > > > These days, unpack_trees is a library function, and it is still leaving > > these entries in the active cache. Furthermore, unpack_trees doesn't > > correctly ignore those entries, and who knows what other code wouldn't > > expect them to be there, but just isn't yet called after a call to > > unpack_trees. To avoid having other code trip over these entries, have > > check_updates() remove them after it removes the working tree files. > > > > While we're at it, make the loop more obvious and skip passing in > > globals to a static function with only one caller. > > After reading the code I understand what you mean. How about > > While at it, make the loop removing those entries more obvious, > and avoid passing global variables as parameters to > check_updates(): there is only one call site anyway. It's the loop's flow control that I'm making more obvious (using a normal for loop instead of a while loop that counts down the number of entries while counting up the pointer to the entry under consideration). I'll clarify the message for the next version. -Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank* - 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
