Re: [PATCH] unpack-trees: also allow get_progress() to work on a different index

> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 3:17 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> >> Do we see these CE_UPDATE|CE_WT_REMOVE bits attached to the cache
>> >> entries in the o->src_index array when get_progress() is fed the
>> >> src_index in the first place?
>> >
>> > Yes, before calling check_updates(o, o->src_index), update_sparsity()
>> > loops over o->src_index and calls apply_sparse_checkout() on each of
>> > the non-conflicted cache entries.  apply_sparse_checkout() will set
>> > either CE_UPDATE or CE_WT_REMOVE whenever items flip from or to having
>> > the SKIP_WORKTREE bit set.
>>
>> Hmph.
>>
>> I thought that the whole point of splitting o->result from
>> o->src_index we did long time ago was to allow us to treat
>> o->src_index constant.  I hope we haven't broken anything by
>> starting to do things like that X-<.
>
> I think we're safe there.  No function started modifying o->src_index
> directly; they just modify the index they are passed in.  The only
> place that passes o->src_index to functions for modification is
> update_sparsity(), which unpack_trees() never calls.