Re: [PATCH 7/8] config: add core.untrackedCache

From: Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@web.de>
Date: Dec 15, 2015, 09:49 UTC
Message-ID: <566FE228.8040708@web.de>
In-Reply-To: <CAP8UFD0ex4JuU=FMDwnSnf9io16=D2_m3x1ajXtCu25OU_DLAw@mail.gmail.com>

On 15.12.15 10:34, Christian Couder wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines

> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:30 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>>
>> The primary reason why I do not like your "configuration decides" is
>> it will be a huge source of confusions and bugs.  Imagine what
>> should happen in this sequence, and when should a stale cached
>> information be discarded?
>>
>>  - the configuration is set to 'yes'.
>>  - the index is updated and written by various commands.
>>  - more work is done in the working tree without updating the index.
>>  - the configuration is set to 'no'.
>>  - more work is done in the working tree without updating the index.
>>  - the configuration is set to 'yes'.
>>  - more work is done in the working tree without updating the index.
>>  - somebody asks "what untracked paths are there?"
>

> As far as I understand the UC just stores the mtime of the directories
> in the working tree to avoid the need of lstat'ing all the files in
> the directories.

This is what I understand: UC stores the mtime of the directories in the working tree to avoid the need opendir() readdir() closedir() to find new, yet untracked, files. (including sub-directories)