From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 02:11:43 GMT
Subject: Re: Possible regression: overwriting untracked files in a fresh repo
Message-ID: <7vk50sve00.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20090825013601.GA3515@coredump.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> diff --git a/builtin-checkout.c b/builtin-checkout.c
> index 8a9a474..1f2f84d 100644
> --- a/builtin-checkout.c
> +++ b/builtin-checkout.c
> @@ -402,7 +402,9 @@ static int merge_working_tree(struct checkout_opts *opts,
>  		topts.dir = xcalloc(1, sizeof(*topts.dir));
>  		topts.dir->flags |= DIR_SHOW_IGNORED;
>  		topts.dir->exclude_per_dir = ".gitignore";
> -		tree = parse_tree_indirect(old->commit->object.sha1);
> +		tree = parse_tree_indirect(old->commit ?
> +					   old->commit->object.sha1 :
> +					   (unsigned char *)EMPTY_TREE_SHA1_BIN);
>  		init_tree_desc(&trees[0], tree->buffer, tree->size);
>  		tree = parse_tree_indirect(new->commit->object.sha1);
>  		init_tree_desc(&trees[1], tree->buffer, tree->size);

This looks a lot saner; I like it.  Care to wrap it up with the usual
supporting material?

I think the "You appear to be" can just go, but I do not feel very
strongly either way.