Re: What's cooking in git.git (Nov 2008, #06; Wed, 26)
- From
Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
- Date
- Nov 30, 2008, 10:29 UTC
- Message-ID
- <fcaeb9bf0811300229v4e7bfbb7g9a0ac72dcddb4326@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <fcaeb9bf0811290502j5db4056fo9b125aaa8b564314@mail.gmail.com>
On 11/29/08, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> On 11/29/08, Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org> wrote: > > If there's any need for this to be distinguished from "assume unchanged", > > I think it should be used with, not instead of, the CE_VALID bit; and it > > could probably use some bit in the stat info section, since we don't need > > stat info if we know by assumption that the entry is valid. > > > Interesting. I'll think more about this. >
As I said, CE_VALID implies all files are present. I could make CE_NO_CHECKOUT to be used with CE_VALID, but I would need to check all CE_VALID code path to make sure the behaviour remains if CE_NO_CHECKOUT is absent. It's just more intrusive.
I have nothing against storing CE_NO_CHECKOUT in stat info except that it seems inappropriate/hidden place to do. ce_flags is more obvious choice. I haven't looked closely to stat info code in read-cache.c though.
-- Duy