>>>>> "LT" == Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
LT> Damn, my cunning plan is some good stuff. I really like this a lot. It is *so* *simple*, clear, flexible and an example of elegance. This is one of the things I would happily say "Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeesh! Why didn't *I* think of *THAT* first!!!" to. LT> NOTE NOTE NOTE! I could make "read-tree" do some of these nontrivial LT> merges, but I ended up deciding that only the "matches in all three LT> states" thing collapses by default. * Understood and agreed. LT> Damn, I'm good. * Agreed ;-). Wholeheartedly. So what's next? Certainly I'd immediately drop (and I would imagine you would as well) both C or Perl version of merge-tree(s). The userland merge policies need ways to extract the stage information and manipulate them. Am I correct to say that you mean by "ls-files -l" the extracting part? LT> I should make "ls-files" have a "-l" format, which shows the LT> index and the mode for each file too. You probably meant "ls-tree". You used the word "mode" but it already shows the mode so I take it to mean "stage". Perhaps something like this? $ ls-tree -l -r 49c200191ba2e3cd61978672a59c90e392f54b8b 100644 blob fe2a4177a760fd110e78788734f167bd633be8de COPYING 100644 blob b39b4ea37586693dd707d1d0750a9b580350ec50:1 man/frotz.6 100644 blob b39b4ea37586693dd707d1d0750a9b580350ec50:2 man/frotz.6 100664 blob eeed997e557fb079f38961354473113ca0d0b115:3 man/frotz.6 ... The above example shows that COPYING has merged successfully, and O and A have the same contents and B has something different at man/frotz.6. Assuming that you would be working on that, I'd like to take the dircache manipulation part. Let's think about the minimally necessary set of operations: * The merge policy decides to take one of the existing stage. In this case we need a way to register a known mode/sha1 at a path. We already have this as "update-cache --cacheinfo". We just need to make sure that when "update-cache" puts things at stage 0 it clears other stages as well. * The merge policy comes up with a desired blob somewhere on the filesystem (perhaps by running an external merge program). It wants to register it as the result of the merge. We could do this today by first storing the "desired blob" in a temporary file somewhere in the path the dircache controls, "update-cache --add" the temporary file, ls-tree to find its mode/sha1, "update-cache --remove" the temporary file and finally "update-cache --cacheinfo" the mode/sha1. This is workable but clumsy. How about: $ update-cache --graft [--add] desired-blob path to say "I want to register mode/sha1 from desired-blob, which may not be of verify_path() satisfying name, at path in the dircache"? * The merge policy decides to delete the path. We could do this today by first stashing away the file at the path if it exists, "update-cache --remove" it, and restore if necessary. This is again workable but clumsy. How about: $ update-cache --force-remove path to mean "I want to remove the path from dircache even though it may exist in my working tree"? So it all boils down to update-cache. The new things to be introduced are: * An explicit update-cache always removes stage 1/2/3 entries associated with the named path. * update-cache --graft * update-cache --force-remove Am I on the right track? You might want to go even lower level by letting them say something like: * update-cache --register-stage mode sha1 stage path Registers the mode/sha1 at stage for path. Does not look at the working tree. stage is [0-3] * update-cache --delete-stage stage-list path Removes the entry at named stages for path. Does not look at the working tree. stage-list is either [0-3](,[0-3])+ or bitmask (i.e. (1 << stage-number) ORed together). The former would probably be easier to work with by scripts * write-blob path Hashes and registers the file at path (regardless of what verify_path() says) and writes the resulting blob's mode/sha1 to the standard output. If you take this lower-level approach, an explicit update-cache would not clear stage1/2/3. My preference is the former, not so low-level, interface. Guidance? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
