On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > It somehow feels wrong to force callers of make_cache_entry() to be > so intimate with the implementation details of refresh_cache_ent() [snip] > option bit CE_MATCH_MISSING_OK that asks it to treat a path that is > missing from the working tree as if it is checked out unmodified.
I came to the same conclusion after reading Elijah's last response. My next series revision adds an argument to make_cache_entry to specify the refresh flags and honors REFRESH_IGNORE_MISSING. Thanks, -Brad -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
