On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Elijah Newren <new...@gmail.com> wrote: > Subject line: unpack-trees rather than unpack-tress. > > > > On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 9:49 AM, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclo...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Prior to fba92be8f7, this code implicitly (and incorrectly) assumes >> the_index when running the exclude machinery. fba92be8f7 helps show >> this problem clearer because unpack-trees operation is supposed to >> work on whatever index the caller specifies... not specifically >> the_index. >> >> Update the code to use "istate" argument that's originally from >> mark_new_skip_worktree(). From the call sites, both in unpack_trees(), >> you can see that this function works on two separate indexes: >> o->src_index and o->result. The second mark_new_skip_worktree() so far >> has incorecctly applied exclude rules on o->src_index instead of >> o->result. It's unclear what is the consequences of this, but it's >> definitely wrong. >> >> [1] fba92be8f7 (dir: convert is_excluded_from_list to take an index - >> 2017-05-05) >> >> Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclo...@gmail.com> > > A somewhat curious finding: when I was rebuilding and re-testing all > 23 patches, I got a failure on this patch in test 31 of > t7063-status-untracked-cache.sh. I did not get any test failures with > any of the other patches. However, after re-running that test or the > whole suite half a dozen times with just up to this patch applied, I > was not able to trigger the failure again. Is there a rare race in > that testcase?
Untracked cache tests are very time-sensitive. I'll try to run and re-run them a couple times to understand more. Thanks for pointing it out. -- Duy
