From: Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:54:18 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] Discard "deleted" cache entries after using them to update the working tree
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.1.00.0801251939570.13593@iabervon.org>
In-Reply-To: <7v63xh5uo0.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org> writes:
> 
> > It's likely that this should get merged in some way with Linus's series to 
> > handle the in-core index differently in general. But this is a simple 
> > solution to the problem that's sufficient for this particular series.
> 
> Just to let you know, the early parts of lt/in-core-index series
> are already in 'next', and it will be one of the first topics to
> graduate to 'master' post 1.5.4.
> 
> I think we both understand that this round is sent purely for
> discussion and I won't be picking them up right now nor later
> before the "for possible inclusion" resend you will be making
> post 1.5.4, so it should not matter too much which exact version
> this round is based on.
> 
> It however may be worthwhile for you to plan rebasing your
> future rounds on top of 077c48df8a72b046a2f562fedffa1c3d3a73a4e2
> (read-cache.c: fix a couple more CE_REMOVE conversion).

I've now got a version rebased on that. The conflicts are pretty 
straightforward, and the tests all pass (once I fix the unrelated bug in 
9/9 wrt the lockfile API change).

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*