Subject line: unpack-trees rather than unpack-tress.
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 9:49 AM, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Prior to fba92be8f7, this code implicitly (and incorrectly) assumes > the_index when running the exclude machinery. fba92be8f7 helps show > this problem clearer because unpack-trees operation is supposed to > work on whatever index the caller specifies... not specifically > the_index. > > Update the code to use "istate" argument that's originally from > mark_new_skip_worktree(). From the call sites, both in unpack_trees(), > you can see that this function works on two separate indexes: > o->src_index and o->result. The second mark_new_skip_worktree() so far > has incorecctly applied exclude rules on o->src_index instead of > o->result. It's unclear what is the consequences of this, but it's > definitely wrong. > > [1] fba92be8f7 (dir: convert is_excluded_from_list to take an index - > 2017-05-05) > > Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclo...@gmail.com> A somewhat curious finding: when I was rebuilding and re-testing all 23 patches, I got a failure on this patch in test 31 of t7063-status-untracked-cache.sh. I did not get any test failures with any of the other patches. However, after re-running that test or the whole suite half a dozen times with just up to this patch applied, I was not able to trigger the failure again. Is there a rare race in that testcase? I certainly don't see anything in this patch that appears problematic, and the fact that I couldn't readily reproduce suggests it could well have been there before any of these patches. Everything else in the patch looks fine to me.
