Re: [PATCH 2/9] merge-recursive: clarify code in was_tracked()

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> > To understand why we're not done yet, the crucial point is *not* that the
> > return value encodes the insert position. The crucial point is that
> > despite asking for an index entry matching a specific name, we might not
> > find one, *even if there is one*.
> 
> I've been wondering why you keep saying "even though we didn't ask,
> we look for stage#0", and now I see why.  The cache_pos() interface
> *is* about finding the stage#0 entry for the given path.

> [...]
> As you pointed out, we can return early without falling into the
> generic "we are still looking at the same path" codepath when we
> find thestage#0 entry, so I wouldn't mind doing something like the
> following.
> [...]