Re: What's cooking in git.git (Mar 2017, #02; Fri, 3)

> On 21 Mar 2017, at 18:43, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Agreed. Would it be OK to store the "delayed" bit in the cache
>> entry itself? The extended ce_flags are stored on disk which is not
>> necessary I think. Would a new member in the cache_entry struct be
>> an acceptable option?
> 
> I'd imagine that those with thousands of cache entries in their
> index prefer not to bloat sizeof(struct cache_entry) for something
> like this, that is _only_ used during the write-out phase.  Would a
> new pointer in the "struct checkout" that points at whatever data
> structure you need (perhaps a "string_list"?) work?  As long as the
> pointer points at a constant thing, you may not even have to loosen
> the constness of "struct checkout *" itself?

> 
>>> Within such a framework, your checkout_delayed_entries() would be a
>>> special case for finalizing a "struct checkout" that has been in
>>> use.  By enforcing that any "struct checkout" begins its life by a
>>> "state = CHECKOUT_INIT" initialization and finishes its life by a
>>> "finish_checkout(&state)" call, we will reduce risks to forget
>>> making necessary call to checkout_delayed_entries(), I would think.
>> 
>> Agreed. How would you want to enforce "finish_checkout(&state)", though?
>> By convention or by different means?
> 
> We can start with "convention", just like "if you did STRBUF_INIT,
> you must do strbuf_release() at some point" has served us well, I
> would think.