On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 1:33 PM Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> The original code considered that two entries with the same mode and
> the same "contents" are the same.  As nobody sane tracks an empty
> file for an extended span of history, that meant that most of the
> time, intent-to-add entries, which has the normal mode bits for the
> blobs (with or without the executable bit) and object name for a
> zero length blob, would have been judged "different".

I agree, this edge case is really arcane. The rabbit hole was deep :)

> So perhaps
> +       !ce_intent_to_add(a) && !ce_intent_to_add(b) &&
> i.e. "a cache entry is eligible to be same with something else only
> when its I-T-A bit is unset".

I decided to follow René's suggestion in response to this. Patch coming soon.


Reply via email to