From: Junio C Hamano Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 18:33:47 GMT Subject: Re: bug report on update-index --assume-unchanged Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Duy Nguyen writes: > You are correct about the original idea behind --assume-unchanged. But > over the time I think we bend over a bit and sort of support these use > cases. For example, aecda37 (do not overwrite files marked "assume > unchanged" - 2010-05-01). The change is one-liner, so I don't mind > doing it. I think that was a misguided change to make the semantics muddy and to break the existing users who use the bit for its intended purpose (i.e. to avoid lstat() by promising that it is not necessary), and not "bending over to support". Offhand, I doubt we would want to add more of the same kind.