Re: [PATCH 7/8] config: add core.untrackedCache

> On 15.12.15 10:34, Christian Couder wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:30 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 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)