Re: git checkout under 1.7.6 does not properly list untracked files and aborts

[Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>]

Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy venit, vidit, dixit 21.09.2011 10:58:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:28:59AM +0200, Michael J Gruber wrote:
>> So, I bisected it. The first bad commit is
>>
>> 9037026 (unpack-trees: fix sparse checkout's "unable to match
>> directories", 2010-11-27)
>>
>> although the real culprit may be its predecessor
>>
>> 2431afb (unpack-trees: move all skip-worktree checks back to
>> unpack_trees(), 2010-11-27)
>>
>> which does not compile:
>>
>>     CC unpack-trees.o
>> unpack-trees.c: In function 'mark_new_skip_worktree':
>> unpack-trees.c:852:75: error: 'o' undeclared (first use in this function)
>> unpack-trees.c:852:75: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only
>> once for each function it appears in
>> make: *** [unpack-trees.o] Error 1
> 
> This may help
> 
> --8<--
> diff --git a/unpack-trees.c b/unpack-trees.c
> index a6518db..a239af7 100644
> --- a/unpack-trees.c
> +++ b/unpack-trees.c
> @@ -245,13 +245,13 @@ static int check_updates(struct unpack_trees_options *o)
>  static int verify_uptodate_sparse(struct cache_entry *ce, struct unpack_trees_options *o);
>  static int verify_absent_sparse(struct cache_entry *ce, enum unpack_trees_error_types, struct unpack_trees_options *o);
>  
> -static int will_have_skip_worktree(const struct cache_entry *ce, struct unpack_trees_options *o)
> +static int will_have_skip_worktree(const struct cache_entry *ce, struct exclude_list *el)
>  {
>  	const char *basename;
>  
>  	basename = strrchr(ce->name, '/');
>  	basename = basename ? basename+1 : ce->name;
> -	return excluded_from_list(ce->name, ce_namelen(ce), basename, NULL, o->el) <= 0;
> +	return excluded_from_list(ce->name, ce_namelen(ce), basename, NULL, el) <= 0;
>  }
> 
>  static int apply_sparse_checkout(struct cache_entry *ce, struct unpack_trees_options *o)
> @@ -849,7 +849,7 @@ static void mark_new_skip_worktree(struct exclude_list *el,
>  		if (select_flag && !(ce->ce_flags & select_flag))
>  			continue;
>  
> -		if (!ce_stage(ce) && will_have_skip_worktree(ce, o))
> +		if (!ce_stage(ce) && will_have_skip_worktree(ce, el))
>  			ce->ce_flags |= skip_wt_flag;
>  		else
>  			ce->ce_flags &= ~skip_wt_flag;
> --8<--
> 
>> Duy, sorry for prodding you again.
> 
> No problem (and sorry for breaking the build). I'll also have a look
> at this problem.

Thanks. I can confirm that with the above patch, the code compiles and
fails my test. So it's the earlier of the two commits which introduces this.

Michael