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. -- Duy -- 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
