Junio C Hamano wrote:
> --- a/builtin/add.c
> +++ b/builtin/add.c
> @@ -495,6 +495,8 @@ int cmd_add(int argc, const char **argv, const char
> *prefix)
> refresh(verbose, pathspec);
> goto finish;
> }
> + if (implicit_dot && !prefix)
> + refresh_ca
Junio C Hamano writes:
> Jonathan Nieder writes:
>
>> Maybe the warning should happen after add_file_to_index() has run,
>> letting git compare the old and new index entries for that path?
>
> Yeah, new and deleted cases we do not have to worry about, so a
> no-op add_file_to_index() is the only
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> Maybe the warning should happen after add_file_to_index() has run,
> letting git compare the old and new index entries for that path?
Yeah, new and deleted cases we do not have to worry about, so a
no-op add_file_to_index() is the only case we have to be careful.
There
Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Jonathan Nieder writes:
>>> Do you mean files that were touched but have no content change, or
>>> something more subtle?
[...]
> Ahh, I haven't run anything under the debugger yet, but I think I
> know what is going on.
>
> Don't we limit our "update-index --refresh" equ
Junio C Hamano writes:
> Jonathan Nieder writes:
>
>> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>
>>> At the point of calling warn_pathless_add(), it seems that we are
>>> triggering this for paths that are not necessarily modified when run
>>> with "add -n -u".
>>
>> Do you mean files that were touched but have n
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> At the point of calling warn_pathless_add(), it seems that we are
>> triggering this for paths that are not necessarily modified when run
>> with "add -n -u".
>
> Do you mean files that were touched but have no content change, or
> something mo
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> At the point of calling warn_pathless_add(), it seems that we are
> triggering this for paths that are not necessarily modified when run
> with "add -n -u".
Do you mean files that were touched but have no content change, or
something more subtle?
--
To unsubscribe from thi
Junio C Hamano writes:
> One thing I noticed about Jonathan's warn_pathless_add() thing is
> that even though it knows for which path we would behave differently
> between the current version and Git 2.0, the warning message does
> not say which path outside the current directory would be added i
Junio C Hamano writes:
> Applying Jonathan's idea on top of the early part that has graduated
> to 'master', here is to add "--ignore-removal" (which is a more
> natural way to say "--no-all") and use it in the warning message.
>
> Junio C Hamano (2):
> git add: --ignore-removal is a better nam
Applying Jonathan's idea on top of the early part that has graduated
to 'master', here is to add "--ignore-removal" (which is a more
natural way to say "--no-all") and use it in the warning message.
Junio C Hamano (2):
git add: --ignore-removal is a better named --no-all
git add: rephrase -A/-
10 matches
Mail list logo
