From: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 20:14:12 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Revamping "git status"
Message-ID: <200908052214.13512.trast@student.ethz.ch>
In-Reply-To: <7v3a862fnj.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch> writes:
> 
> > So it detects there are worktree changes, but then decides not to show
> > them because it's an unmerged entry.  I think the following should go
> > in 3/5, but note that I haven't looked at the rest of the code to
> > check if it breaks anything:
> 
> Thanks.  Shouldn't it go in 4/5 instead, though?

Er, yeah. *sigh*

> > -- 8< --
> > diff --git i/wt-status.c w/wt-status.c
> > index 6370fe2..5a68297 100644
> > --- i/wt-status.c
> > +++ w/wt-status.c
> > @@ -400,7 +400,8 @@ static int wt_status_check_worktree_changes(struct wt_status *s)
> >  	for (i = 0; i < s->change.nr; i++) {
> >  		struct wt_status_change_data *d;
> >  		d = s->change.items[i].util;
> > -		if (!d->worktree_status)
> > +		if (!d->worktree_status
> > +		    || d->index_status == DIFF_STATUS_UNMERGED)
> >  			continue;
> >  		changes = 1;
> >  		if (d->worktree_status == DIFF_STATUS_DELETED)
> > -- >8 --
> 
> Not "d->worktree_status"?  That would be more consistent with what
> wt_status_print_changed() actually ends up checking.

Hmm, true.  I just picked index_status because unmerged state is an
index property.  It's probably better if the two functions agree on
the criterion.

-- 
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch