From: Torsten Bögershausen Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 09:49:28 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] config: add core.untrackedCache Message-ID: <566FE228.8040708@web.de> In-Reply-To: On 15.12.15 10:34, Christian Couder wrote: > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:30 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Junio C Hamano 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)