Re: [PATCH v2] doc: make clear --assume-unchanged's user contract
- From
Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
- Date
- Dec 9, 2014, 08:30 UTC
- Message-ID
- <5486B342.8090800@drmicha.warpmail.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <1418096636.19104.31.camel@segulix>
Sérgio Basto schrieb am 09.12.2014 um 04:43:
Show 62 quoted lines
> On Sáb, 2014-12-06 at 15:04 +0000, Philip Oakley wrote: >> Many users misunderstand the --assume-unchanged contract, believing >> it means Git won't look at the flagged file. >> >> Be explicit that the --assume-unchanged contract is by the user that >> they will NOT change the file so that Git does not need to look (and >> expend, for example, lstat(2) cycles) >> >> Mentioning "Git stops checking" does not help the reader, as it is >> only one possible consequence of what that assumption allows Git to >> do, but >> >> (1) there are things other than "stop checking" that Git can do >> based on that assumption; and >> (2) Git is not obliged to stop checking; it merely is allowed to. >> >> Also, this is a single flag bit, correct the plural to singular, and >> the verb, accordingly. >> >> Drop the stale and incorrect information about "poor-man's ignore", >> which is not what this flag bit is about at all. >> >> Signed-off-by: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org> >> --- >> Documentation/git-update-index.txt | 18 ++++++++---------- >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/git-update-index.txt b/Documentation/git-update-index.txt >> index e0a8702..da1ccbc 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/git-update-index.txt >> +++ b/Documentation/git-update-index.txt >> @@ -78,20 +78,18 @@ OPTIONS >> Set the execute permissions on the updated files. >> >> --[no-]assume-unchanged:: >> - When these flags are specified, the object names recorded >> - for the paths are not updated. Instead, these options >> - set and unset the "assume unchanged" bit for the >> - paths. When the "assume unchanged" bit is on, Git stops >> - checking the working tree files for possible >> - modifications, so you need to manually unset the bit to >> - tell Git when you change the working tree file. This is >> + When this flag is specified, the object names recorded >> + for the paths are not updated. Instead, this option >> + sets/unsets the "assume unchanged" bit for the >> + paths. When the "assume unchanged" bit is on, the user >> + promises not to change the file and allows Git to assume >> + that the working tree file matches what is recorded in >> + the index. If you want to change the working tree file, >> + you need to unset the bit to tell Git. This is >> sometimes helpful when working with a big project on a >> filesystem that has very slow lstat(2) system call >> (e.g. cifs). >> + >> -This option can be also used as a coarse file-level mechanism >> -to ignore uncommitted changes in tracked files (akin to what >> -`.gitignore` does for untracked files). >> Git will fail (gracefully) in case it needs to modify this file >> in the index e.g. when merging in a commit; >> thus, in case the assumed-untracked file is changed upstream, > > I don't understand why you insist that we have a contract,
Buy setting the bit, you are making the promise to Git: "You can assume the file is unchanged without even checking."
> when : > "git diff .", "git diff -a" and "git commit -a" have a different > behavior of "git commit ." , this is not about any contract this is > about coherency and be user friendly .
Git does not make the promise that it will not check.
Show 16 quoted lines
> At least if you want keep things like that, wrote in doc, clearly, that > assume-unchanged flag *is not*, to git ignoring changes in tracked files > and currently not ignore files for git commit <path> and may not work in > other cases . > > Also don't understand why --assumed-untracked shouldn't deal with > changed files instead fallback in "the user promises not to change the > file" and sometimes works others not. > > Also if this is the contract when a file is different from commit, > should warning the user that is not in contract (modify files that are > assumed-untracked ) > > > Thanks, >
git update-index is a plumbing command, not a user frontend. If you use it and bring workdir/index into an inconsistent state it's simply the wrong use of a plumbing tool. Things tend to break when you use a plumbing tool incorrectly ;)
That being said, there is some wrong advice in gitignore.txt that we should remove.
In git-update-index.txt, we could try and spell this out even more clearly:
..allows Git to assume... in the index; nonetheless Git may check the working tree file under some circumstances.
And maybe we could specify in all man pages the category of a command, or a warning for plumbing commands ("plumbing - use at own risk").
Michael