On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 10:02 AM, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> diff --git a/merge-recursive.c b/merge-recursive.c
> index b404ebac7c..4f054d6dbb 100644
> --- a/merge-recursive.c
> +++ b/merge-recursive.c
> @@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ static int add_cacheinfo(struct merge_options *o,
> struct cache_entry *ce;
> int ret;
>
> - ce = make_cache_entry(mode, oid ? oid->hash : null_sha1, path, stage,
> 0);
> + ce = make_index_entry(&the_index, mode, oid ? oid->hash : null_sha1,
> path, stage, 0);
> if (!ce)
> return err(o, _("add_cacheinfo failed for path '%s'; merge
> aborting."), path);
There's also a refresh_cache_entry() call about ten lines after this;
since you converted all other make_cache_entry() and
refresh_cache_entry() calls in this patch, I'm curious if that one was
left out for a reason or was just an oversight.
There are also a lot of add_cache_entry() calls in this function. I'm
guessing we should either convert all of those too, or just change
back this particular make_index_entry to make_cache_entry() as it was;
it seems weird to have a mix of explicit the_index and implicit
the_index usages in the same function. If we convert them all,
perhaps we should consider having merge_options store the index we're
working on? If you want to punt this until later or leave it for me
while I make all my ongoing merge-recursive changes, that's fine.
Just thought I'd point it out.
