From: Junio C Hamano Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2025 18:47:46 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] apply: read in the index in --intent-to-add mode Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20250628225819.1294068-4-ray@ameretat.dev> "Raymond E. Pasco" writes: > There are three main modes of operation for apply: applying only to the > worktree, applying to the worktree and index (--index), and applying > only to the index (--cached). > > The --intent-to-add flag modifies the first of these modes, applying > only to the worktree, in a way which touches the index, because > intents to add are special index entries. However, it has not ever > worked correctly in any but the most trivial (empty repository) > cases, because the index was never read in (in apply, this is done > in read_apply_cache()) before writing to it. As the inventor of "add -N", I think what "apply -N" does may be wrong (only judging from the above description; it's been a while since I really read the code in apply.c). It does not make any sense to write a new index that has only the ITA entries. > If we merely gate read_apply_cache() behind update_index, then it will > not be read when state->apply is false, even if it must be checked. > Therefore, we instead read the index if it will be either checked or > updated, because reading the index is a prerequisite to either. Makes sense. > Reported-by: Ryan Hodges > Original-patch-by: Johannes Altmanninger > Signed-off-by: Raymond E. Pasco > --- > apply.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/apply.c b/apply.c > index e7856ae6b3..1757d34618 100644 > --- a/apply.c > +++ b/apply.c > @@ -4837,7 +4837,7 @@ static int apply_patch(struct apply_state *state, > LOCK_DIE_ON_ERROR); > } > > - if (state->check_index && read_apply_cache(state) < 0) { > + if ((state->check_index || state->update_index) && read_apply_cache(state) < 0) { > error(_("unable to read index file")); > res = -128; > goto end;