From: Horst von Brand <vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 19:52:01 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Return error when not checking out an entry due to dirtiness.
Message-ID: <200510041952.j94Jq1Hs016453@laptop11.inf.utfsm.cl>
In-Reply-To: <junkio@cox.net>

Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
> Without -f flag, 'git-checkout-index foo.c' issued an error message
> when foo.c already existed in the working tree and did not match index.
> However it did not return an error from the underlying checkout_entry()
> function and resulted in a successful exit(0).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
> 
> ---
> 
>  * I've made sure that the existing scripts do not use
>    checkout-index without -f in a way that could be affected by
>    this change.  However, third-party scripts may be affected by
>    this.  Cogito and StGIT should be OK -- they either run
>    checkout with -f, do not check the error return when it does
>    not use -f, or runs checkout without -f in an empty working
>    tree.
> 
>  checkout-index.c |   11 ++++++++---
>  entry.c          |    2 +-
>  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> 5a166f6a9d1b7ca2de673139fbfc4112b1b2e308
> diff --git a/checkout-index.c b/checkout-index.c
> --- a/checkout-index.c
> +++ b/checkout-index.c
> @@ -63,15 +63,20 @@ static int checkout_file(const char *nam
>  
>  static int checkout_all(void)
>  {
> -	int i;
> +	int i, errs;
>  
> -	for (i = 0; i < active_nr ; i++) {
> +	for (errs = i = 0; i < active_nr ; i++) {

This is ugly. Why not just:

        errs = 0;
        for (i = 0; i < active_nr ; i++) {    

(errs is in no way the variable controlled by the for).
-- 
Dr. Horst H. von Brand                   User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica                     Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria              +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile                Fax:  +56 32 797513