On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 1:25 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Yes, indeed.  I wonder why your new test did not notice it, though
>> ;-)
> ... and the answer turns out to be that it was not testing the right
> thing.  On top of that faulty version, this will fix it.

Yes, write-tree should test that well.

> Your suggestion to move CE_INTENT_TO_ADD to mark-intent-to-add makes
> sense but a caller needs to be adjusted to drop the duplicated flag
> manipulation.

No no. I found that duplicate, but I did not suggest removing it
because it is needed there..

> @@ -613,8 +614,6 @@ int add_to_index(struct index_state *istate, const char 
> *path, struct stat *st,
>         ce->ce_namelen = namelen;
>         if (!intent_only)
>                 fill_stat_cache_info(ce, st);
> -       else
> -               ce->ce_flags |= CE_INTENT_TO_ADD;
>         if (trust_executable_bit && has_symlinks)
>                 ce->ce_mode = create_ce_mode(st_mode);

A few lines down, there's ie_match_stat() call that will check
CE_INTENT_TO_ADD and returns "changed" immediately without looking at
stat data. If stat info is used, it may (not so sure) return "not
changed", the exit path is taken and mark_intent_to_add() is ignored.
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