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()
> 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.

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

Reply via email to