Re: GIT 1.6.0-rc1

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jul 29, 2008, 08:36 UTC
Message-ID: <7vljzlhyt8.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <7v4p69jefb.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

Show 22 quoted lines

>>> Junio C Hamano, Mon, Jul 28, 2008 08:44:52 +0200:
>>>> Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> 
>>>> > t2103-update-index-ignore-missing.sh still broken on Windows because
>>>> > of stat.st_size being 0 for directories there.
>>>> 
>>>> I recall we did not reach a useful conclusion of that discussion.
>>>
>>> Why isn't the proposed patch useful? (and would it be possible to make
>>> the answer out of plain, small and short words?)
>>
>> Can you answer out of plain, small and short words why the proposed patch
>> is correct without unwanted side effects, not just "this seems to solve
>> the particular issue for me but I don't know if it has unintended side
>> effects"?
>
> Ok, I took a deeper look at the codepaths involved.  Although it does work
> around the issue, I do not think your patch alone is the "correct" one in
> the longer term.
>
> It needs a bit of explanation, and the explanation won't be exactly
> "plain, small and short", unfortunately.

Alex, I ran the full test with this, but only on Linux boxes; obviously not on any flavor of Windows. I think it is correct, and the "first line of defence" fix is the same as your patch, so I'd assume it would work for you as well. But extra eyeballs are always appreciated.