On Sun, 16 Mar 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, 16 Mar 2008, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > > > > While you're at it, you should at least fix the comment. I actually think > > it would be better to have update start out 0 and be set to CE_UPDATE > > after verify_uptodate() and verify_absent(), since those checks are what > > verifies that using CE_UPDATE is okay. > > Well, I just made it match the old behavior. It used to be that the > copy_cache_entry() would clear the CE_UPDATE bit in the target 'merge' > entry, so I just cleared "update" there, the way we used to do it. > > So now we actually *do* match the comment again - the bug was that we > didn't match it before due to it all being a bit too subtle. Well, the top part of the comment suggests that this is just an optimization (don't bother to write out a file that you know is unchanged), when it's actually necessary for correctness (since we don't know if the working tree matches the old index). -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
