Re: [PATCH 1/2] reset: handle submodule with trailing slash
- From
Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>
- Date
- Sep 11, 2013, 11:20 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CACsJy8BQWSthAKePsBDyc5nAofLiTpXO5oc+jbSGx33YBioTeg@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20130911110806.GT2582@serenity.lan>
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 6:08 PM, John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk> wrote:
Show 39 quoted lines
>> > -- >8 --
>> > diff --git a/builtin/reset.c b/builtin/reset.c
>> > index 9efac0f..800117f 100644
>> > --- a/builtin/reset.c
>> > +++ b/builtin/reset.c
>> > @@ -143,7 +143,6 @@ static int read_from_tree(const struct pathspec *pathspec,
>> > opt.output_format = DIFF_FORMAT_CALLBACK;
>> > opt.format_callback = update_index_from_diff;
>> >
>> > - read_cache();
>> > if (do_diff_cache(tree_sha1, &opt))
>> > return 1;
>> > diffcore_std(&opt);
>> > @@ -169,7 +168,7 @@ static void set_reflog_message(struct strbuf *sb, const char *action,
>> >
>> > static void die_if_unmerged_cache(int reset_type)
>> > {
>> > - if (is_merge() || read_cache() < 0 || unmerged_cache())
>> > + if (is_merge() || unmerged_cache())
>> > die(_("Cannot do a %s reset in the middle of a merge."),
>> > _(reset_type_names[reset_type]));
>>
>> reset --soft does not go through these code paths (i.e. it does not
>> need index at all). If we fail to load index index in "reset --soft" I
>> think it's ok to die(). Corrupt index is fatal anyway. But "reset
>> --soft" now has to pay the cost to load index, which could be slow
>> when the index is big. Assuming nobody does "reset --soft" that often
>> I think this is OK.
>>
>> Alternatively we could load index lazily in _CHEAP code only when we
>> see trailing slashes, then replace these read_cache() with
>> read_cache_unless_its_already_loaded_earlier() or something.
>
> read_cache() already has an early return if the index is already loaded
> so I don't think we need to worry about a special function for that.
>
> I'm not sure it's worth optimizing this case too heavily, but it might
> be a nice change to make parse_pathspec() not rely on the index being
> loaded before it is called with certain flags.Yeah I ddin't check. I agree putting read_cache() in _CHEAP code sounds nice. We won't need to worry about forgotten read_cache() elsewhere.
-- Duy