From: Christian Couder Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:42:40 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] config: add core.untrackedCache Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <566FE228.8040708@web.de> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Torsten Bögershausen wrote: > On 15.12.15 10:34, Christian Couder wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:30 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> Junio C Hamano 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) I think you are probably right too. In the v2 patch series I just sent, there is: +This feature works by recording the mtime of the working tree +directories and then omitting reading directories and stat calls +against files in those directories whose mtime hasn't changed. I hope it is better. Thanks, Christian.