From: Junio C Hamano Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 23:18:39 GMT Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] unpack-trees: add the dry_run flag to unpack_trees_options Message-ID: <7v39k37kmo.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <4DDC1DF9.9030109@web.de> Jens Lehmann writes: > Until now there was no way to test if unpack_trees() with update=1 would > succeed without really updating the work tree. The reason for that is that > setting update to 0 does skip the tests for new files and deactivates the > sparse handling, thereby making that unsuitable as a dry run. > > Add the new dry_run flag to struct unpack_trees_options unpack_trees(). > Setting that together with the update flag will check if the work tree > update would be successful without doing it for real. > > The only class of problems that is not detected at the moment are file > system conditions like ENOSPC or missing permissions. Also the index > entries of updated files are not as they would be after a real checkout > because lstat() isn't run as the files aren't updated for real. > > Signed-off-by: Jens Lehmann > --- A very sane and clear description. Good. > AFAICS this patch enables the user to achieve a dry run by calling > unpack_trees() with both update and dry_run set. > > My "Teach read-tree the -n|--dry-run option" adapted to this new flag > runs all tests successfully ... > > > unpack-trees.c | 4 ++-- > unpack-trees.h | 3 ++- > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) But on which change does this come?