On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> So I would expect that we'd rather fix the update_index_if_able instead by
>> checking for the lockfile to be in the correct state?
>
> I actually don't expect that, after looking at other call sites of
> that function.
Yes I checked the other callers as well right now and you seem to be correct.
My initial response was based on the name of the function,
specifically the _if_able
part as that hinted to me that I can call the function with no
precondition and the
_if_able will figure out when to do the actual update_index.
The first part of the condition of the function
(istate->cache_changed || has_racy_timestamp(istate)
reads rather as a _if_needed instead of an _if_able to me.
