From: Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:58:41 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] rm: only refresh entries that we may touch
Message-ID: <fcaeb9bf1001160258w476be063s595568afef088f42@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7v8wbyiry4.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On 1/16/10, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy  <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:
>
>  > diff --git a/builtin-rm.c b/builtin-rm.c
>  > index 57975db..4cac3d1 100644
>  > --- a/builtin-rm.c
>  > +++ b/builtin-rm.c
>  > @@ -169,7 +169,6 @@ int cmd_rm(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>  >
>  >       if (read_cache() < 0)
>  >               die("index file corrupt");
>  > -     refresh_cache(REFRESH_QUIET);
>  >
>  >       pathspec = get_pathspec(prefix, argv);
>  >       seen = NULL;
>  > @@ -181,6 +180,7 @@ int cmd_rm(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>  >               struct cache_entry *ce = active_cache[i];
>  >               if (!match_pathspec(pathspec, ce->name, ce_namelen(ce), 0, seen))
>  >                       continue;
>  > +             refresh_cache_entry(ce, 1);
>
>
> Why does this pass "1" instead of "0"?  The existing code does not give
>  refresh_cache() REFRESH_REALLY bit, and a patch that is marked as a pure
>  optimization should pass 0.  If you really mean it, please spell it as
>  CE_MATCH_IGNORE_VALID and justify why it is a good change in a separate
>  patch.

"refresh_cache(REFRESH_QUIET);" does pass "0" indeed. Can you please
change it to "0"? Thanks.
-- 
Duy