On Fri, Feb 09 2018, Junio C. Hamano jotted:

> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason  <ava...@gmail.com> writes:
>> When users upgrade to 2.17 they're going to have git yelling at them
>> (as my users did) on existing checkouts, with no indication whatsoever
>> that it's due to the UC or how to fix it.
> Wait.  Are you saying that the new warning is "warning" against a
> condition that is not an error?

No I mean the warning itself gives you no indication what the solution
is, or why it might be happening, and because it's printed on every
occurrence we had "git status" invocations on some big repos where there
would be hundreds of lines of the same warning for different
now-nonexisting directories.

Deferring it and just printing "we had N cases of..." would be better,
but would make the logic a lot more complex, I'm not sure how common
this would be in the wild, but as noted happened on a large proportion
of our checkouts, so having something mentioning this in the docs is

I only had that git version out for about an hour, but had some users rm
-rfing their checkouts and re-cloning because they couldn't figure out
how to fix it.

Is noting it in the docs going to help all those users? No, but at least
we'll have something Google-able they're likely to find.

>> ... doesn't it only warn under that mode? I.e.:
>>     -"could not open directory '%s'")
>>     +"core.untrackedCache: could not open directory '%s'")
> For example, if it attempts to open a directory which does *not*
> have to exist, and sees an error from opendir() due to ENOENT, then
> I do not think it should be giving a warning.  If we positively know
> that a directory should exist there and we cannot open it, of course
> we should warn.  Also, if we know a directory should be readable
> when it exists, then we should be warning when we see an error other
> than ENOENT.

*nod*, so not UC-specific, even though I've only seen it in relation to

Reply via email to